Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Judy Mallaber: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady must wait until after questions, and then the business statement, and then the statement, so she has time for a cappuccino.

Local Authority Recycling

Michael Jack: What steps he is taking to improve local authority recycling performance.

David Miliband: Recycling and composting of household waste has doubled in the past four years and more than tripled in the past eight years. Government support for, and engagement with, the poorest performing local authorities, as well as progressively lower landfill limits and the escalating landfill tax will all help to drive forward even higher recycling rates.

Michael Jack: Impressive as the Secretary of State's answer is, he will be aware of the considerable discrepancies between the policies of different authorities. Some recycle glass, but others do not; some recycle plastic, but others do not; some fine people if they put their rubbish in the wrong recycling bin, which is not helpful if we wish to encourage more recycling. As the Secretary of State prepares to publish his new waste strategy, what steps will he take to encourage a more uniform performance by local authorities further to increase recycling rates?

David Miliband: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's recognition of the Government's impressive record, which was largely achieved before I arrived in the Department. I accept his point that we need to drive up performance across the country, but there are different ways of doing so in different areas to reflect local needs. It is significant that over 90 per cent. of local authorities offer kerb-side collection, and over 80 per cent. collect plastics as well as the more traditional recyclates. In the waste strategy, we will indeed seek to find ways of helping all local authorities to raise their performance. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman an example of interdepartmental co-operation that he will applaud? In the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, which has been introduced in the House, the development of joint waste authorities across metropolitan borough lines will help to achieve the consistency that he rightly seeks.

Phyllis Starkey: Will the Minister consider, too, the slightly perverse effect of the weight requirement on local authorities, which discourages the recycling of plastic and results in recycled paper being of much poorer quality because of the co-mingling of waste?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important technical point. As she suggested, there is a tendency, if we are not careful, to discriminate against the collection of high-volume but low-weight plastics. As I suggested earlier, the fact that 80 per cent. of local authorities collect plastics is a step forward, but I assure my hon. Friend that the issue is being looked at. We are keen in the waste strategy to make sure that any disincentives to recycling and collection are minimised.

Jo Swinson: Is it not the case that recycling rates would improve if more packaging were made of recyclable materials? What steps has the Secretary of State taken to encourage food producers, particularly the large supermarket chains, to adopt a more responsible approach by reducing excess packaging and, importantly, making sure that any necessary packaging is made from materials that can be recycled?

David Miliband: I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that the first priority is to reduce the amount of packaging, rather than to tackle the recycling potential. As for packaging that is required, may I point out that voluntary agreements to achieve an 80 per cent. reduction in packaging have been negotiated in part by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare with some major supermarkets? All supermarkets have to meet the requirements of the packaging directive that we have implemented, but the hon. Lady made an important point about the recycling of packaging. As I recollect, 70 to 80 per cent. of packaging is recyclable, but it is important to drive that up as high as possible. The interest in her constituency knows no bounds, because one of my colleagues tells me that she conducts some of her surgeries in Tesco, and I am sure that she can take the recycling message to her next surgery.

Andrew Gwynne: Stockport's Liberal Democrat council proposes to deliver 52 black bin bags—a year's supply—to every household in one go, with no restrictions on the number of bags that people are allowed to put out each week. Will that help or hinder recycling efforts in Stockport?

David Miliband: When it comes to local matters in Stockport, I certainly take my hon. Friend's views about the rights and wrongs of the situation into account, as he is a passionate campaigner for a more environmentally friendly and greener Stockport. From central Government's point of view, it is important that local authorities pay suitable attention to the particular needs of their own areas, which is why we have not sought to impose a single Stalinist model for recycling and collection on the country. It is right that local authorities innovate, but they should do so in a sensible way, not a silly way.

Gregory Barker: Over the past year the Government have announced welcome plans to do more, at last, to promote recycling of school waste, but how will they judge the effectiveness of any of those initiatives if, according to the written answer given to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda),
	"Central Government have not set any specific recycling targets for schools. There are targets for local authority recycling of household waste which does not include waste from schools. We do not know how much school waste has been recycled in the last 10 years"—[ Official Report, 25 July 2006; Vol. 449, c. 1461W.]?
	New schemes are great, but where is the visible follow-through, where is the rigour of reporting progress, and where is the accountability?

Bill Olner: Does the hon. Gentleman want more regulation?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I applaud the hon. Gentleman's concern to boost recycling rates, and I am sure he will be as pleased as I am that local authorities have been reminded recently that they have a duty to collect recyclates from schools, which has not always happened. As my hon. Friend suggested, one person's rigour in reporting, which I think was the phrase that the hon. Gentleman used, is another person's bureaucracy and form-filling. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want me to announce that I was sending a form to every school in the country asking it to weigh the amount of waste recycled. We will know success when we achieve more recycling by local authority levels. The percentages that I gave in answer to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) are the sort of outcome that the hon. Gentleman should support, rather than denigrate.

Domestic Waste

John Robertson: What discussions his Department has had on reducing the amount of domestic waste exported.

Ben Bradshaw: The export of waste for recycling is not bad in itself because it reduces the amount of virgin materials used by the importing country and is often carried in ships that would otherwise sail empty. However, we are working to expand markets for recyclates in this country and to reduce our reliance on exports.

John Robertson: My hon. Friend will be aware of recent reports about the 200,000 tonnes of plastic that have been exported to China. Does he share my concern about the effect that that will have on local people there? What can he do to ensure that they are protected, and that we as a nation deal with our own waste and dispose of it ourselves?

Ben Bradshaw: It is a matter for the Chinese Government to ensure that proper consideration is given to the working conditions to which my hon. Friend refers. We ensure, as far as we can, compliance with international rules. It is not in the interests of China to import recyclable materials only to see them put into landfill. As I said in response to his initial question, it is better, particularly in overall climate change terms, that China, India and other emerging and growing economies make products from recyclable materials that we produce, rather than cutting down trees or using virgin oil to make those products.

Nigel Evans: But is it not a fact that we import an enormous amount of goods from China? I recall the container coming to the UK before Christmas laden with goods for us to buy as presents. Would it not be a good rule, therefore, for us to return all the packaging around those imported goods, so that the producers think twice about the amount of packaging that they use for goods exported to the United Kingdom?

Ben Bradshaw: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House, a number of initiatives and measures have been introduced, not least by retailers, to address the problems of excess packaging. What the hon. Gentleman suggests does happen. A significant proportion of plastic, paper and card packaging which comes from overseas is re-exported as recyclable material, as I said earlier, obviating the need to make new products from virgin materials, which can only be a good thing.

Single Payment Scheme

Martin Linton: If he will publish payments made under the common agricultural policy single payment scheme by constituency.

David Miliband: Detailed analysis of all the payments made under the 2005 single payment scheme is not yet available. Once the remaining 2005 scheme payments have been completed, a decision will be taken on the level of detail that will be published.

Martin Linton: Some £16 billion is paid every year to farmers and growers under the single payment scheme— [Interruption.]—£16 billion. In the interests of accountability and transparency, is it not time to identify payments at least by constituency?

David Miliband: Many farmers would like £16 billion to be distributed under the single payment scheme, but the figure may be one tenth of that. My hon. Friend raises an important point. He asked a similar question a year ago. He has rightly been saying that information should be available about the amount paid under the single payment scheme. As he knows, for the period up to 2005, we published regularly the payments to individual farmers. That is entirely reasonable. Our first priority, obviously, is to make sure that the payments are correct. Once we are sure that they are correct— [Interruption.] I made the point myself. I ask hon. Members to humour me for a moment. It is our first responsibility to make the payments correctly, but once they have been made, it is important that the information is in the public domain, and I should like that level of openness to continue under the new system.

David Curry: The Secretary of State would therefore agree that if any figures were to be meaningful, he would have to be certain that the money was paid to the farmers who were entitled to payments in respect of the land which so entitled them in the year for which they were eligible and in respect of a product that they grew. Since none of those conditions is yet in place, it would be entirely fatuous to attempt to publish anything, but when they are in place, we would welcome their publication.

David Miliband: I have enormous respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he could not have been listening to my last answer, in which I said that our first duty was to ensure that the correct payments were made and that we should then publish the information.

David Taylor: It would be helpful to members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, on which I sit, and to other Members to have information of the kind suggested in the question. Could we not go further in respect of the largest decile of payments and publish the individual payments made to the very rich agro-industrial complexes that receive so much agricultural support?

David Miliband: I am sorry if the situation is not clear; perhaps I should have made it clearer. Under the system that was introduced by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), individual payments are published. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) asked about payments by constituency. We have not done that so far, not least because several farms, large and small, cross constituency boundaries. We do not want to create additional bureaucracy. However, the degree of openness suggested in the original question is important, and I know that my hon. Friend and his Select Committee share that view.

Roger Williams: The Government's preferred method of agricultural support is through the rural development programme and pillar 2 payments, yet the Department has failed to publish the English rural development programme for this year. As a result, new agri-environment schemes and local food processing payments are not being made. Is the Secretary of State content with that situation, and how long will it continue?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman has a conspiracy theory too far if he believes that it is the Government's fault that the European Parliament, at the behest of the Conservatives, should have blocked the development of the rural development programme; that the European Commission's plans should be stuck in the European Parliament, with the support of the official Opposition; and that the European Parliament should now be saying that 20 per cent. of the funds due to farming communities and rural areas should be blocked, again with the support of the Conservatives. That is not the Government's fault but something that we are trying to resolve, and we could do with a bit of help from Opposition Members.

Henry Bellingham: What percentage of farmers will receive this year's single farm payment by the June 2007 target date?

David Miliband: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the European rules are based on the percentage of the fund disbursed rather than the percentage of farmers who are paid. As I made clear in my statement in November, our aim is to meet the European Union requirement that 96.14 per cent. of UK funds are disbursed by 30 June. I am pleased to say that we are working hard with the Rural Payments Agency to deliver that. As I have said before, I will always keep the House informed on progress.

Peter Ainsworth: In his statement on the single payments scheme on 7 November, the Secretary of State told the House that a mere 1,700 farmers were still awaiting their final payments for 2005. Did he know at the time that in fact up to 20,000 cases remain unresolved? If he did know, why did not he tell the House, and if he did not know, why not? Why did it take an investigation by the  Yorkshire Post to extract the truth about the scale of the continuing mess at the Rural Payments Agency? So much for his talk of openness. Is not this just the same old sleight of hand and spin? Is this the way to restore the confidence of the rural communities, and why should they believe a word he says any more?

David Miliband: It is very important that I answer this charge absolutely directly. The hon. Gentleman has rushed into print to accuse the Government of covering up information that he says was only exposed by the  Yorkshire Post—a fine and wonderful newspaper, I should like to underline.
	The hon. Gentleman's allegation is that throughout the autumn the Government conspired to keep from the public and Members of the House the fact that the Rural Payments Agency, having made payments to farmers, was then open to farmers coming back and asking for corrections. I have with me a press release dated 6 September 2006—fully three to four months before the hon. Gentleman woke up to this story—the second sentence of which states:
	"Around 19,000 SPS claims together with 7,700 claims with horticultural authorisations are being reviewed to verify whether adjustments are required."
	Some cover-up! That is a press release put on to the internet by the Rural Payments Agency. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman improves his research before he starts making allegations.

Fisheries

Andrew Pelling: What percentage of the population of (a) cod, (b) sole and (c) plaice are expected to be removed from UK seas per year under new quotas.

Ben Bradshaw: It is not possible to provide a figure for UK seas because fish move around. Quotas are set for stocks in general and UK fishermen fish outside UK waters in the same way as fishermen from other member states fish inside UK waters. However, approximate estimates of the agreements reached on the stocks that the hon. Gentleman refers to would amount to removal of between 10 per cent. and 60 per cent., depending on the state of the stock. Of those stocks, the UK's share of the total allowable catch ranges from 4 per cent. for North sea sole to 61 per cent. for west of Scotland plaice.

Andrew Pelling: I am grateful for the Minister's answer, particularly for his great perception that fish move around. I am also grateful for the advice that I have received from Mr. McDermott, who runs the excellent McDermott fish and chip shops, which have won many awards. Speaking as an urban Member, it is important for me to ask questions about fishing policy, though it is very often Members representing ports who ask such questions. Is not 60 per cent. a devastating take? Would we not do better to follow the example of the Norwegians, who manage their Arctic cod stock in the Barents sea in co-operation with the EU and Russia? By having that sense of possession over our own seas while being co-operative with the EU, we could secure more effective management of our fish stock.

Ben Bradshaw: I hate to inform the hon. Gentleman, but his Front Benchers have abandoned the policy of unilateral withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. I am told today by Dundee's  The Courier that the Conservative Scottish fisheries spokesman, Ted Brocklebank, is so outraged that he is planning his resignation. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a word with his Front Benchers.

Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend will be aware of the impact of the burning of fossil fuels on the state of the ocean, on commercial fisheries and on quotas, so would he recommend that the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) visit the exhibition on oceans and climate change, which is displayed in the Upper Waiting Room? Other hon. Members should also pay a visit—if they have not already done so—while it is on this week to observe the scale of the problem and, indeed, to see some of the very exciting solutions ventured by the Plymouth marine science partnership, which is conducting the exhibition.

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I certainly would recommend that all hon. Members visit the exhibition that is sponsored by my hon. Friend. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is going there at 11.30 this morning. My hon. Friend and the exhibition make very important points about the connection between the health of the marine environment and climate change. Our seas play a crucial role in absorbing CO2 and there is a danger that increasing acidification of the seas will help tip the balance even more severely towards global warming. Some fantastic technological solutions are being developed in my hon. Friend's Plymouth constituency, which will not only help to mitigate that, but provide solutions to promote absorption of CO2 in the future.

William McCrea: Does the Minister believe that there is a future for a fishing fleet catching whitefish in the United Kingdom? I ask that because the Minister with responsibility for fishing in Northern Ireland refused to give the tie-up aid for the Northern Ireland whitefish fleet. That will mean the decimation, the destruction and disappearance of our whitefish fleet. Is that policy the same throughout the UK?

Ben Bradshaw: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noted the comments of the representative of the Northern Ireland fishing industry after the December Council. He was full of praise for the agreement that was reached, not least because we managed to achieve a 17 per cent. increase in the quota for prawns for Northern Ireland fishermen. Prawns are their most important economic stock.
	Of course there is a future for the whitefish fleet throughout the United Kingdom as long as we ensure that we do not overfish and exploit stocks unsustainably. The hon. Gentleman may have read in the Northern Ireland press this week, if the news was reproduced there, that the Government in the Irish Republic are planning a massive decommissioning scheme for their whitefish fleet in recognition of the problem that I outlined: in the past, our fishing fleet has not always been the right size for exploiting the stock.

Community Land Trusts

David Drew: What plans he has to assess the use of community land trusts to underpin county council smallholdings.

Barry Gardiner: The Government have always encouraged authorities to maintain county council smallholdings, and I am aware of the good work of organisations such as the community land trust at Fordhill farm and Stroud Community Agriculture in my hon. Friend's constituency in supporting smaller agricultural holdings. The management of county council smallholdings is ultimately a matter for individual authorities to determine.

David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer and for responding to the Adjournment debate a few weeks ago on the same topic. Like me, he perceives the value of county farm estates. However, will he continue to examine ways in which we can secure the future of those county farm estates? They are continually under review, which can sometimes lead to their sale. We must therefore consider solutions such as community land trusts. I hope that my hon. Friend and his officials will continue to investigate the matter.

Barry Gardiner: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on the matter over many years. He may be interested to know about community finance solutions—an initiative by Salford university, which is undertaking a national demonstration programme that will partly support several community land trusts in their work and help local people establish them when necessary. I hope that that may form part of the solution that he seeks. I am aware that Gloucester county council is examining the matter on a case-by-case basis as the portfolio comes up for renewal to determine what it will do. That process has gone on for a long time and must be left to local decision makers. However, we should all be interested in the model of community land trusts for the future of farming.

Anne McIntosh: I am sure that the Under-Secretary joins me in acknowledging the role that county council estates play. In the event of selling county council smallholdings, will he examine the rights of sitting tenants, especially those of their sons and daughters, so that their future in farming is not overlooked?

Barry Gardiner: I acknowledge the hon. Lady's point. Sometimes tenancies are held in a family for generations but suddenly come to an end as the land is disposed of. She is right to highlight the matter as requiring closer attention. We believe that tenancies give farmers the flexibility that they need to adopt new practices. They also provide an effective way into farming for people who could not otherwise farm. Indeed, their origin is in encouraging people to farm who did not have the land and the means to do it. In one sense, when generations have continued on the same smallholding, it is the equivalent of bed blocking. However, we must acknowledge that the matter is a genuine concern for many families and we should enable the next generation to continue in farming.

Environmental Liability Directive

Jeremy Hunt: Whether he plans to make special provisions for sites of special scientific interest when implementing the environmental liability directive.

Barry Gardiner: The Government are consulting on their proposed approach.

Jeremy Hunt: According to GeneWatch UK, 11 sites of special scientific interest in my constituency are at risk of genetic and toxic pollution, including one site near Eashing farm in Godalming, where there are plans for a quarry, despite the deep reservations of many of my constituents. Will the Under-Secretary ensure that the directive is implemented in a way that gives proper protection to wildlife? That is one of my constituents' biggest concerns about the often unpopular quarries.

Barry Gardiner: I understand the force not only of the hon. Gentleman's specific point about sites of special scientific interest in his constituency but of the wider issue. The arguments in favour of a wider and of a narrower interpretation of the directive are finely balanced. In line with Hampton, Arculus and all our principles of better regulation, we should not over-implement EU directives in this country.  [Interruption.] I am glad to hear support from the Conservative Front Bench on that. Equally, we wish to ensure that we meet our biodiversity target of restoring 95 per cent. of SSSIs to a favourable condition by the end of 2010. The consultation is a genuine opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and others in the Chamber to present evidence in support of the case for gold-plating, in this instance, if that is what they wish.

Angela Smith: GeneWatch UK's campaign to press the Government to extend the directive to all SSSIs and all biodiversity action plan species is supported by many Members of the House. Will my hon. Friend address that argument when he responds to the consultation taking place on the implementation of the directive?

Barry Gardiner: Yes, the whole consultation is about that. Approximately 75 per cent. of SSSIs overlap—by area, not by number—with Natura 2000 sites and would therefore have some protection under the directive. I take my hon. Friend's point that she wishes that to be applied to the protected species and habitats that we designate under SSSIs in this country. Strict liability, which the directive proposes, is a test that should be used sparingly. On the whole, the Government consider that when a person has sought and obtained a permit for some activity, or when the actions were clearly in compliance with the best scientific practice and information available, it is wrong to hold that person accountable should damage result. When damage was intentional or reckless, however, we already have powers under the SSSI regulations to take action to remediate and to prosecute the perpetrators.

Maria Miller: I am concerned that the route being pursued by the Government may exclude three important SSSIs in my constituency, Mapledurwell fen, Pamber forest and Silchester common, all of which are highly valued by local residents. It has been useful to hear the Minister's comments, but will he specifically consider cases put forward for protection? Mapledurwell fen in particular has been cited by botanists as the "richest half acre" of Hampshire, and I believe that it deserves more attention.

Barry Gardiner: I am pleased to give the hon. Lady the assurance that she seeks: we will be considering the issue in relation to SSSIs. I want to correct one misapprehension under which she may be labouring. The greatest threat to SSSIs comes not from the sort of damage that it is envisaged that the directive would counter and remediate, but from inappropriate management, over-grazing and heather-burning of moorland. When the proposal as to how the Government should treat the issue first came forward, the regulatory impact assessment showed that the cost to small farming businesses might be 5 per cent. of average turnover. Although the costs are small nationally, as a proportion of small farm holdings' turnover they are high. The Government had to come to a resolution on that fine balance when we put forward our interim position in the consultation. We have a position on our preferred status, but it is subject to consultation. A cost of £30,000, however, is a lot to a small farmer.

Peter Ainsworth: I am pleased that the Minister is clearly thinking hard about the issue and I hope that he will continue to do so because he may avoid the Government scoring yet another environmental own goal.
	There is a real danger that the Government will squander an opportunity to enhance ecological protection. By excluding a large number of SSSIs and species listed under the biodiversity action plan, they are in danger of sending out a message that those do not matter very much. More specifically, as the Minister should know, the science of genetically modified crops is still being debated and the commercial and environmental dangers posed by the risk of cross-contamination are a matter of serious public concern. Will he therefore follow the example of the Welsh Assembly and remove the permit defence against strict liability in the case of contamination by GM?

Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are consulting on that. I take positively his remarks about it being given serious consideration, which is what we wish to do. He will accept that devolved assemblies have the right to come to different conclusions. The different situations in England and Wales in terms of progress towards our biodiversity targets—in particular, towards their favourable and improving status in our SSSIs—mean that in Wales the traffic lights are showing red whereas in England they are showing amber-green, as he will know. There is a relevant difference, and it is appropriate that in different jurisdictions we consider the directive, the impact that it may make and the gold-plating that may result from it.

Fish Quotas

Bob Spink: What discussions he has had with fishermen's organisations on quota levels for (a) larger boats and (b) smaller, inshore boats.

Ben Bradshaw: Ministers and officials meet fishermen's representatives regularly to discuss quota levels. The Prime Minister recently met a delegation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster) to discuss the quota allocation between the fleet sectors.

Bob Spink: Is there any unused sole quota in the over-10 m sector? If so, could that quota be transferred to help the small boat inshore sector, which could use it without damaging the stocks? Do we need a little more flexibility in the way in which we manage our national fish quotas?

Ben Bradshaw: We do use that flexibility and my officials work hard to organise the swaps that the hon. Gentleman advocates. I shall certainly consider his suggestion. My understanding is that there is a possibility that this year the quota may be under-fished in the over-10 m sector, in which case that might allow for some swapping. However, in previous years the allocation has been over-fished in both the under-10 m and over-10 m sectors. It is difficult to devise a system that could be made permanent without upsetting either sector. However, we try to be as flexible and helpful as we can be in instances when quota is not fully fished to benefit those who want to fish a little more.

Tom Watson: What discussions has my hon. Friend had with representatives of the fishermen of Young's prawns who this week chose to harvest their quota of prawns, ship them to Thailand to be peeled by cheap labour only for them to be shipped back again to be sold as Scottish prawns in the UK market? What pressure does he think could be brought to bear on companies that choose such environmentally unsustainable business models?

Ben Bradshaw: The pressure is being brought to bear on such companies not least by my hon. Friend in making that point in the Chamber. The case he refers to involves, I think, a Scottish company. If my recollection is correct, I am pretty sure that my Scottish colleague, Ross Finnie, expressed similar concerns about the sustainability of that activity when it first arose in the latter part of last year, as did the First Minister in Scotland, Jack McConnell.

Angus MacNeil: The cod recovery plan can have an impact on fishermen's quotas. What is the future of the plan and when will it next be reviewed?

Ben Bradshaw: The Commission's intention is to review the plan this year.

Andrew George: Like the Minister, it is entertaining to observe, as it dawns on some political parties, that although fish may not be that bright, at least we know that they are just about intelligent enough not to have hang-ups about their nationality.
	What are the Government doing to make a strong case for extending the work of the sea fisheries committees to 12 miles? We have discussed this before and I know that the Government are keen to achieve that. It would be useful to have an update.

Ben Bradshaw: As I have told the hon. Gentleman during our discussions, we are keen to explore the issue in the context of the general review of the common fisheries policy, which I believe is due in 2012. That does not mean that we cannot in the meantime make applications to the Commission for the extension of certain competences in agreement with the sea fisheries committees, but the arrangement would obviously have to be agreed at Commission level. Where there is potential for interference in the activity of other member states' vessels fishing legitimately between 6 and 12 miles offshore, difficulties could be caused, but, as I have said, we are keen to explore the issue.

Bill Wiggin: Is it the case that the Department has miscalculated the under-10 m quota, and that the Minister does not have the flexibility that he mentioned owing to the Government's implementation of fixed-quota allocations for the over-10 m vessels? While he is apologising for those mistakes, will he also apologise for failing to encourage more English, Irish and Welsh representation on the board of Seafish?

Ben Bradshaw: No.

Energy Consumption

Bob Blizzard: What incentives he plans for energy companies to encourage them to help their customers reduce energy consumption in their homes.

Ian Pearson: The Government launched the energy efficiency commitment in 2002. It obliges gas and electricity suppliers to promote household energy efficiency, and is a key driver of reduction in energy consumption in homes. We doubled suppliers' targets after the first phase of the commitment, and they will rise by another 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. from 2008. We will maintain a supplier obligation in some form until at least 2020.

Bob Blizzard: When I look at my electricity bill I see that for the first 197 units I pay about 15p a unit, and for the remainder I pay about 9p a unit. The initial amount of electricity that I use is the most expensive, and the more I use the cheaper it becomes. The standing charge has the same effect. Is that not completely the wrong incentive? Low energy use is being penalised by the tariff structure, while high energy use is being encouraged. Will my hon. Friend take up the matter with the energy companies? If we can encourage low energy use through the billing structure, we can also help to reduce fuel poverty.

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Government are keen to encourage better billing and better information, and we need to look at tariffs as well.
	My hon. Friend, who is a long-standing campaigner on these issues, will know that in the 2005 energy efficiency innovation review we mentioned the possibility of considering, after phase 3 of the energy efficiency commitment, setting a target for the reduction of absolute energy demand. We think that that is a model well worth exploring, and we shall be discussing it over the next few years to establish whether it would be feasible after 2011.

Julie Kirkbride: Does the Minister agree that the present cost of installing solar panels or wind turbines is prohibitive for many householders who are unlikely to see a payback on their investment? Has he made any representations recently to the Treasury, which today introduced a new air passenger duty without the authority of the House—a so-called green tax, but with no green benefits?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is out of order.

Judy Mallaber: Will my hon. Friend consider encouraging commercial energy supplies to provide packages of energy measures, including both energy efficiency measures and the installation of local energy systems, as recommended in the excellent Trade and Industry report published last week? Will he take account of the barriers to the installation of such systems to which the report refers?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend is right to mention the Select Committee's impressive report. We shall want to give full consideration to the views expressed in it.
	I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said about energy packages. We need to see developments in that regard, and we also need to see more work involving energy service companies. In his pre-Budget report, the Chancellor announced that there would be more work of that kind. I think that decentralised energy systems offer significant additional potential for a reduction in both energy bills and carbon dioxide emissions, and the Government are keen to achieve both.

Christopher Huhne: The average January temperature in Sweden is 7° below ours in the UK, but carbon emissions from Swedish homes are just 5 per cent. of their total whereas they are 27 per cent. of ours. Given that three quarters of the homes that we will be living in in 2050 have already been built, does the Minister accept that we need to be far more ambitious in addressing the energy efficiency of the existing housing stock than we have been so far, and how does he intend to ensure that a holistic approach is taken where the entire home, including the boiler, the windows and underfloor insulation, is tackled, rather than one that simply cherry-picks cavity wall insulation or loft insulation, as appears to be the case under the energy efficiency commitment—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ian Pearson: It is true that at present under the energy efficiency commitment priority has been given to cavity and loft insulation. Those are the least-cost solutions. However, it is also right to point out that cavity wall and loft insulation are among the best steps that can be taken to improve the thermal efficiency of people's homes. As the energy efficiency commitment develops further, and as we consider some of the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), we will need to look at adopting additional energy packages and microgeneration measures in addition to standard energy efficiency commitment tools. All such measures are being actively considered as part of the EEC—energy efficiency commitment—consultation for phase 3.

David Chaytor: Has the Minister seen the film on climate change produced by former Vice-President Al Gore? As he considers new proposals for the next phase of the energy efficiency commitment, would it not be a superb idea to send a DVD of the film to every household in the country, and could he discuss that with some of our energy suppliers?

Ian Pearson: I do not know whether it would be appropriate to send a DVD to every household, but that is an excellent and compelling film and it is available on DVD at a reasonable price. There might, however, be a case for sending a DVD of it to every secondary school; I think we should consider doing that. I want to point out the impact that the energy efficiency commitment is already having. About 10 million homes in Britain—6 million of them on low incomes—have already benefited from the energy efficiency commitment. As we are doubling the EEC and are looking to double it again, more homes will become more energy efficient. That is a good thing, and it will help us to achieve our carbon targets.

Gregory Barker: Given the Secretary of State's sorry admission yesterday that the Government will not meet their manifesto commitments on greenhouse gas reductions given in 1997, 2001 and 2005, is it not perverse that they have now set their face against empowering local authorities to do better by setting higher domestic energy efficiency standards both in the weak draft planning guidance on climate change and by killing the Local Planning Authorities (Energy and Energy Efficiency) Bill in this House last Friday? Was that destructive and unambitious approach—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ian Pearson: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. We are on target in respect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions; in fact, we are on target to achieve a 23 per cent. to 25 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with 1990 levels. That is double the commitment that we had under Kyoto. We are one of the very few countries in the world—if not the only one—that is on track to achieve that. We will be able to achieve that because of the measures that have been taken, including the climate change levy, the climate change agreements and the whole climate change programme review, most of which were opposed by the Opposition.

Biodiversity

Jim Devine: What discussions he has had with representatives of the Wildlife Trusts on the contribution of management of the landscape to promoting biodiversity.

Barry Gardiner: On 31 October 2006, I met the chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts together with the chief executive and volunteers of the London Wildlife Trust at Camley street natural park, where I saw at first hand the valuable contribution of the Wildlife Trusts and congratulated them on their work and their contribution to the delivery of the England biodiversity strategy and the UK biodiversity action plan.

Jim Devine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he confident that his Department's biodiversity targets will be met, and how is he monitoring them?

Barry Gardiner: On the target to achieve 95 per cent. favourable status for SSSIs by 2010, if my hon. Friend looks at the figures, he will find that this year, 73.5 per cent. are in either a favourable or recovering condition. That compares with a figure of 56.9 per cent. in March 2003, so he can see that considerable progress is being made. We are roughly on target, and we believe that we should still meet the target to restore SSSIs to a favourable condition by 2010.

Patrick McLoughlin: When the Minister was in Derbyshire on Tuesday, did he take the opportunity to meet the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust? Had he done so, it would have explained to him its concerns about the recent incident at Stony Middleton, which I know he visited, and the quarrying that is taking place at Wager's Flat, on Longstone Edge. Can he reassure the trust that the Government will take action to prevent this destruction of the countryside?

Barry Gardiner: The right hon. Gentleman expresses his concern about the occurrence at Stony Middleton, where the lagoon gave way. Thankfully, on that occasion there was no loss of life and no one was injured, but it could so easily have been very different. He is absolutely right to say that, when I was in the area the other day and what had happened was made clear to me, I took the opportunity to visit Stony Middleton and to speak to a number of local residents. Unfortunately, I did not have time, in what was an extremely packed schedule, to meet members of the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust. However, I did, as I say, meet many local residents—as well as the park authority—who expressed clearly to me their concerns about what is going on at Backdale quarry and on Longstone Edge as a whole. I gave them my absolute assurance that, although this is in the first instance a local planning matter, we appreciate that it has real national implications. I explained to them that we wish to see a long-term solution to the problems that they are going through, but one that can be applied nationally.

Rob Marris: The Wildlife Trusts recently published the excellent "A Living Landscape" booklet, which highlights the need to help wildlife adapt to climate change. When my hon. Friend met the Wildlife Trusts, did he discuss the specific measures needed to help UK wildlife adapt to the climate change that is already occurring, and which will get worse in future?

Barry Gardiner: Yes, and in fact, about three months ago—on 2 November, I think—we held a meeting of the England Biodiversity Group, of which the Wildlife Trusts is a member. It attended that meeting, and the group is looking at how we can improve and refresh the strategy. It is a considerable time since the biodiversity action plans were put in place, and we have committed ourselves to refreshing them. The strategy now rightly places considerable emphasis on large-scale habitat restoration at an eco-system and landscape level. The document that my hon. Friend mentions makes the approach clear:
	"we have been slowing the decline in biodiversity by protecting small oases of wildlife...Now, in the face of climate change, it is essential that we link these oases and restore our ecosystems".
	That is certainly the approach that we must take.

Supermarkets

Laurence Robertson: What assessment he has made of the potential implications for farmers of the latest report by the Competition Commission on the power of supermarkets; and if he will make a statement.

David Miliband: The commission has set out its emerging thinking on its inquiry into the groceries market, including an initial assessment of the impact of retailer buyer power on primary producers. No conclusions have been reached so far.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that response. Was he as disturbed as I was to read the letter that the commission sent to all Members of Parliament? It said that the commission recognised that some farmers are experiencing difficulties,
	"but there are fewer of these than we had expected."
	Will the Secretary of State tell the commission that in fact, a lot of farmers, especially milk producers, are really struggling? Far be it from me to advocate a return to production subsidies—I certainly do not—but one problem is that, since the ending of that system, the supermarkets have got away with pressing down the price of milk at the farm gate, which has caused milk producers considerable hardship. Will the Secretary of State have a word with the commission about that?

David Miliband: I really am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question and I hope that through my answer I can make a point to all hon. Members, including Opposition Front Benchers. Many hon. Members are concerned about this issue. The purpose of the Competition Commission's letter was to signal that it has had very few—only about six or seven—specific examples to investigate and consider. It is appealing—and I join in that appeal and I hope that we can spread it around the country—for farmers with experience to get in touch with it. The obvious riposte is whether there is any danger in being open about those experiences, but the Competition Commission has given absolute assurances to me and others that any request for confidentiality will be completely respected.
	It is obvious that farmers may have inhibitions about engaging in this process, but I hope that hon. Members will join me in assuring them that we have had strong assurances from the Competition Commission. If it is to investigate the issue properly, it needs more than the six or seven cases that it has so far been given. If we can get the message out that substantive evidence needs to be given to the commission—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I need to interrupt the Secretary of State there.

Russell Brown: I wrote to my local branch of the National Farmers Union and spoke with it early in January. Single payments are being eroded in many cases because those farmers that are involved in milk production have seen all those losses being swallowed up. I appreciate that little evidence has been offered so far, but what more can the Government do to assist farmers in making their case about unfair competition?

David Miliband: I applaud my hon. Friend's initiative in contacting the NFU and suggesting that it provides information. I have two points to make to him. First, he will know that under the agriculture development scheme DEFRA has spent £1.3 million on trying to spread good practice in the dairy sector to promote innovation and ensure that as many dairy farmers as possible were able to follow the example of the best in the sector, who are making a real go of it.
	Secondly, I repeat the point that I made in answer to the original question: without substantive evidence, the Competition Commission cannot investigate the issue. That has to be the focus now if we are to obtain the benefits of the independent commission that we have at our service.

Patrick Cormack: That is fine, but if the Secretary of State truly shares the concerns articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), will he invite in the heads of the supermarkets and tell them of the Government's acute concern on that front?

Daniel Kawczynski: Quite right!

David Miliband: The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on the dairy industry, knows that when I met him before Christmas I told him that I had already met the supermarkets and made these points to them. I have also met individual supermarkets, because it is important to point out—as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said when he asked the original question—that we do not wish to give the impression that we want to go back to the days of the Milk Marketing Board, with the Government, still less me, trying to set the price of milk. It is important not to give that message. It is also important that we recognise that responsible practice by the supermarkets offers huge advantages for consumers and producers. The emphasis must be on "responsible" and it is important that we look at the issue in detail, because different supermarkets have different practices. We must ensure that effective practices are developed on all sides, including the producer side and the retail side.

Renewable Energy

Andrew Slaughter: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding support for the development in the UK of emerging technologies for offshore forms of renewable energy.

Ian Pearson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to discuss policies, such as support for offshore wind, marine and tidal renewable energy, where DTI and DEFRA both have a key role to play in their successful delivery.

Andrew Slaughter: While it takes an especially strong sea breeze to blow in Shepherd's Bush, many of my constituents are rightly concerned about maximising renewable energy sources and minimising their fuel bills. What plans does my hon. Friend have to reform the renewables obligation and what effect is that likely to have on energy prices?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about energy bills. Reducing them through reduced consumption is a key element in achieving our target of cutting CO2 emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050. Renewable energy is another option, and some of the new developments of the south-east coast are very important. Renewable energy is a key part of the Government's long-term plans for reducing CO2 emissions. We believe that the renewable obligation can reduce emissions substantially: we are currently consulting on how it should be banded and hope to be able to say more in the energy White Paper to be published shortly.

Local/Speciality Food Promotion

Kali Mountford: What support his Department provides for promoting the wider availability of regional, local and speciality foods.

Barry Gardiner: We are providing an additional £5 million between 2003 and 2008 to support this important sector that contributes to the viability of rural economies. Buying food and drink locally and in season is also likely to mean that less energy has been used in its production. Buying food that has travelled less can also be a positive choice in helping to reduce transport emissions. More than 4,000 producers have already benefited from this support, which is delivered by Food from Britain.

Kali Mountford: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that supporting locally grown, seasonal food is good for the local economy and environment, and that it tastes pretty darn good too? If he has had the opportunity to taste locally grown Yorkshire produce, does he agree that it ranks among the finest in the world? Will he do all he can to support fine Yorkshire produce and make sure that it gets due recognition?

Barry Gardiner: As ever, my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Locally grown produce has benefits for the environment, but the main thing is that it tastes darn good too. She makes a powerful case for the food produced in her area—and may she champion it for many years to come.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for the coming weeks?

Jack Straw: The business of the House for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 5 February—Second Reading of the UK Borders Bill.
	Tuesday 6 February—Remaining stages of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill.
	Wednesday 7 February—Opposition day [5th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "The al-Yamamah Arms Agreement and Related Matters", followed by a debate entitled "The Government's Failing Record on Crime". Both debates arise on a Liberal Democrat motion.
	Thursday 8 February—A debate on the future of buses on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 9 February—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 19 February will include:
	Monday 19 February—Motions relating to benefits up-rating, followed by a debate on "Human Rights: Values, Rights and Responsibilities", on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Tuesday 20 February—Remaining stages of the Planning Gain Supplement (Preparations) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Income Tax Bill.
	Wednesday 21 February—Opposition day [6th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Thursday 22 February—A debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, subject to be announced.
	Friday 23 February—Private Members' Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 22 February, 1 March and 8 March will be:
	Thursday 22 February—A debate on the report from the Quadripartite Committee on Strategic Export Controls: Annual Report for 2004, Quarterly Reports for 2005, Licensing Policy and Parliamentary Scrutiny.
	Thursday 1 March—A debate on sport and young people.
	Thursday 8 March—A debate on the report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee on reform of the coroners system and death certification.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. On 1 March, can we have a St. David's day debate on Wales, in Government time, so that hon. Members can examine Labour's catalogue of failure there? Last year, the Government refused such a debate, saying that there was enough Welsh business in the House, so can we have a debate this year so that the voice of the people of Wales can be heard?
	It has been shown that under this Government it costs more to send a child to nursery than to many public schools. Access to affordable child care is crucial for women wanting to get back to work, particularly lone parents, so can we have a debate on child care?
	Can we have a debate on the costs of Government restructuring? Since 1997 there have been nine major reorganisations of the NHS in nine years, two of which alone cost £320 million. We have seen millions wasted on abortive police mergers, on setting up then abolishing the Strategic Rail Authority, and on setting up then abolishing social care inspection bodies. Now the Government want to spend up to £2 billion reorganising local government. That sounds like moving the deckchairs on a sinking ship. We should debate this utter waste of money, and show how the money could have been better spent on patients, passengers and services.
	Linked to that, can we have a debate on joined-up government? The chief inspector of prisons says that one of the problems for the prison service is that money promised by the NHS for mentally ill convicts has not come through because of the "upheaval" caused by, for example, the reorganisation of primary care trusts. It is not just health care that suffers from all that restructuring. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is available for that debate, so that he can explain how his decisions to freeze the Home Office budget and block new private finance initiative prison projects have contributed to the current crisis in our prisons?
	The press report that the White Paper on Lords reform is expected next week, but it is suggested that it may not be supported by all members of the Cabinet. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer to vote on this issue when the time comes? In the past nine years he has not voted on Lords reform, and if he is to be Prime Minister, we would like to know what he thinks about it. Perhaps his views, like those of the Northern Ireland Secretary and the International Development Secretary, do not accord with those of the Prime Minister.
	Finally, I have a paper here containing details of a parliamentary campaign among Labour Members. It sets out the strategy outline, and which Members are willing to go public and which are not. However, it does not say what the campaign is. Some of my cynical colleagues have suggested to me that it is a deputy leadership campaign. I was more generous and assumed that it must be a campaign against Government health policy. May we have a statement on what this campaign is, so that other Members can get involved, should they wish to?
	With the Chancellor blocking prison places, the Foreign Secretary blocking Home Office reform, the Chief Whip campaigning against health policy, Labour Members campaigning against each other, and the Deputy Prime Minister telling us yesterday that he is demob happy, is it not clear that the Government are in paralysis and that the only answer for the country is for the Prime Minister to go, and go now?

Jack Straw: That was original.
	The right hon. Lady asked whether there would be a St. David's day debate. Yes, one is planned for 1 March, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be delighted to talk in great detail about Labour's success in Wales. That includes, for example, 7,500 additional police officers. On health, which is a devolved issue, the Labour-led Welsh Government have done extremely well, providing 400 more consultants, over 7,000 more nurses and 100 more dentists since 1999. There has been an extraordinary increase in resources devoted to education, and 1,700 more teachers since 1998. Employment is at a record high, with 1.3 million people in work. It is a fantastic record and we are delighted to debate it.
	The right hon. Lady asked about our child care policy. She leads with her chin, does she not? Child care was a lamentable failure under the Conservatives, whereas under this Government, with expenditure that they opposed, we have a good record on child care. Everybody in the country knows that it is thanks to a Labour Government that we now have tax credits giving effective support to families, a network of Sure Start programmes, children's centres and vouchers for child care. That means that many more working parents can go back to work, where they wish to.
	On the costs of reorganisation, my advice to the right hon. Lady is not to trade our reorganisations with hers. For example, there was rail privatisation reorganisation, for which her party voted and on which they all campaigned. It was one of the most catastrophic reorganisations, which we have had to resolve, and having done that— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) may mock, but we brought Network Rail into public ownership and invested hundreds of millions of pounds, and the result is a 40 per cent. increase in the number of passengers travelling by train. Where there is a problem—as there is in the right hon. Lady's area with First Great Western—responsibility for it lies with the train operating company, which she should remember, because she supported privatisation.
	There are some proposals for the reorganisation of local government. A few years ago, local government was reorganised in the right hon. Lady's county, just as it was partially reorganised in my county of Lancashire. Speaking for Lancashire, the transfer of responsibility for all services to a unitary authority has made a big difference to delivery on the ground, and the costs of reorganisation have been tiny by comparison.
	On joined-up government, I read and listened carefully to what Anne Owers said about the relationship between the Home Office and mental health provision. There is a continuing long-standing problem, in that many of those who commit crimes also have mental health problems. That is a fact of life, but a great deal of work is going into trying to improve mental health provision inside prisons. As the right hon. Lady wants a serious debate about the problem, she will know that mental health practitioners are often reluctant to take on people diagnosed with mental health problems who happen to be in prison. My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Health are looking into the matter.
	The right hon. Lady made some points about the Home Office budget being frozen. It has not been frozen. There are certainly restrictions on the growth of bureaucracy in all Departments—I thought that she was in favour of those—but capital building and the expansion of prison places have increased. The proof is that almost 20,000 additional prison places have already been provided in the past 10 years.
	The right hon. Lady knows very well when the Lords White Paper is to be published, because I told her. She has been a member of the cross-party group on the Lords, where we have been seeking consensus when it is perfectly obvious—everybody knows—that opinion on reform of the Lords varies very much in all the major parties, and between this House and the other place. It is for that reason that we committed ourselves to a free vote on composition, which will include all Ministers, as we made clear before and at the election. There is not a Government view—

Andrew MacKay: What about the Chancellor voting?

Jack Straw: There will be a White Paper, because it is important that there should be a focus for the debate. There will be a statement on it, followed—as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) knows very well—by consideration by this House, not once but twice, before the House comes to a decision, and there will be equivalent processes, which are a matter for the Lords, in the other place.

Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the UK's continuing engagement with the Democratic Republic of the Congo? The country recently held its first elections for more than 40 years, observed by a number of Members and strongly supported by our Government. The DRC has come out of a civil war involving six neighbouring countries and the deaths of 4 million people, but it is little discussed in public debate and I have failed so far to secure an extended debate in Westminster Hall, so will my right hon. Friend consider finding time for that important debate on the Floor of the House?

Jack Straw: I commend my hon. Friend's interest in that issue, which is too often neglected in the public prints in the UK, even though that country is where the largest number of people have been killed in civil strife in the past 30 years. I cannot promise a debate, but I shall certainly consider her request.

David Heath: It may be helpful if I point out that between the two debates on Wednesday 7 February we will seek a Division of the House, under Standing Order No. 118, on a motion relating to the Merchant Shipping (Inland Waterway and Limited Coastal Operations) (Boatmasters' Qualifications and Hours of Work) Regulations 2006.
	I listened carefully to what the Leader of the House said about the benefits of a unitary authority in his area, but is it not important that a statement be made on the process of local government reorganisation? I am aware that 26 bids have been submitted to the Department, including two from Somerset, where the Conservatives say that a county unitary is unthinkable, although next door in Wiltshire they are not only thinking of it, but bidding for it. The important issue is not the merits or demerits of reorganisation, but whether there is an opportunity to consider those bids properly. Is it sensible to do so in the middle of a hard-fought district council campaign? Will there be an opportunity for local people to give their views, or will only councillors, Members of Parliament and Ministers be able to do so, as seems to be the case at the moment?
	May we have a debate on the British Library? It is one of our greatest cultural institutions. It is not a place of entertainment, so it is not a place where admission fees are appropriate. In the interests of scholarship, will the House ensure that the British Library is properly maintained?
	In the light of today's revelations about the improper pressure put on the Attorney-General to reverse an opinion, and given the reported views of the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs—herself a recent Solicitor-General—which are that public trust in the role of the Attorney-General has been undermined, and that his advice should be routinely published, may we have an urgent debate on the tarnished role of the Attorney-General?
	Lastly, may we have a debate on e-petitions? I note the enormous success of the Prime Minister's website, which allows people to sign petitions on all sorts of subjects, and I receive a profusion of them. I have one question, which is really a benchmarking exercise: how many signatures are required on an e-petition before anything actually changes?

Jack Straw: On local government reorganisation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government set out the process in the local government White Paper. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that opinions vary markedly on the issue, and not necessarily according to party. It so happens that it was a Conservative Government who agreed that Blackburn should transfer to a unitary authority in 1996, against the all-party opposition of Lancashire county council, so there is no party point to make. However, someone has to make a decision, because otherwise there will be paralysis and no change. There is never a right time to make such decisions. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's area has elections every year or every four years, but mine has them every year, so there will always be an election coming up, or an election that has just taken place; that is how it is.
	We have increased the resources for the British Library, as well as museums, significantly, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport would not do anything to damage the services provided by the British Library.
	I wholly resent and reject the implications of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about my noble Friend the Attorney-General. He has carried out the duties of his office to the highest standards of propriety. The role of the Attorney-General is well settled, and I am glad that on 14 December the shadow Attorney-General confirmed the Conservative party's support for the Attorney-General's role, when responding to the Solicitor-General's repetition of the Attorney-General's statement about the suspension of the investigation of the Saudi matters. There is no way wholly to detach some considerations from the prosecution system, such as considerations of national security, and of national or public interest in the way that the Liberals suggest. Prosecutors are required by law to consider such matters. The hon. Gentleman ought to look abroad, at countries where prosecutors are allegedly entirely independent of Ministers, and see what criticism they are under, because they end up making political judgments, but are totally unaccountable in respect of those judgments. The Liberals would be screaming much more about the issue in that situation.
	On e-petitions, the hon. Gentleman's intervention was timely, because I have looked at the interest in e-petitions on the Downing street website, and I have talked to officials at No. 10 about the way in which those petitions could be linked to petitions in the House; that is an important function performed by the House. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Procedure Committee is conducting an inquiry on petitions, and I will arrange for the people running the Downing street website to talk to the Clerk and the Chairman of the Procedure Committee about how we can better link the two together.

Joan Walley: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the number of signatures not just on petitions but on early-day motion 132, which raises the issue of illegal logging?
	 [That this House notes the problem of illegal logging, which is valued at 10 to 15 billion euros per year, costing producer countries billions in lost revenue, causes widespread environmental damage and loss of biodiversity, and increases carbon emissions; notes research by WWF which estimates that the EU is responsible for at least three billion euros of this and that the UK imports over 70 per cent. of its timber and is one of the largest importers of illegal timber within the EU; believes that the current EU Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade Action Plan is inadequate, as it does not prevent illegal imports entering the EU via third countries such as China; supports the recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee for legislation to make it illegal to import illegal timber into the EU; further notes that Chatham House has reported that such legislation is WTO compliant; and, therefore, calls on the Government fully to support moves to introduce this legislation as a matter of urgency.]
	I tabled the motion, which has been signed by more hon. Members than any other early-day motion. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is shocking that, despite the best efforts of companies such as Balfour Beatty, which has gone to great lengths to make sure that it procures sustainable timber, the UK is the third biggest importer of illegal timber? Is it not time that we had a debate in the House so that we can call on the European Community to introduce legislation to stop the import of illegal timber by the UK and the EU?

Jack Straw: I certainly note my hon. Friend's interest, and I congratulate her on the vigour with which she has pursued the matter. As she knows, there are a number of opportunities to raise the issue, including in Westminster Hall and on the Adjournment, and I will look at her request.

George Young: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has much on his mind at the moment, so we hope that he has not forgotten about his last Budget. Can the Leader of the House tell us when that event will take place—and in connection with that, is he as confident today as he was last week that today's air passenger duty has completed all the appropriate processes in the House of Commons?

Jack Straw: First, the Budget date will be announced in the appropriate way; the right hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that. I will try to ensure that I send him a personal billet doux with the details, in case he misses it. On his second point, the decision to bring the tax into force today was entirely lawful, proper, and consistent with previous procedures. I do not know why there are complaints from some airlines, because when they impose a fuel surcharge they impose it on passengers who have already booked a ticket and paid the fare.

Peter Bone: indicated dissent.

Jack Straw: That is true of the fuel surcharge, and it is a matter for the airlines whether they charge existing passengers for that tax or, as British Airways are doing, absorb the costs themselves.

Tom Watson: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the powers of local government? We read in the papers that local authorities may be given powers to erect more speed cameras. That may be open to misrepresentation by our opponents, so a debate would allow us to restate the case that Labour stands for the hard-working family and the British-assembled motor car.

Jack Straw: I would be delighted to try to arrange such a debate. We do indeed stand for hard-working families and for British-manufactured motor cars. The number of cars manufactured in this country is very high; it is not quite at its peak, but it is approaching that level. May I tell my hon. Friend that we have speed cameras because of concern for hard-working families, as we wish to ensure that families, particularly children, are safe from speeding motorists?

Andrew MacKay: It is clear that to avoid continuing Government paralysis the Prime Minister must retire soon—so will the Leader of the House assure us that he will quickly introduce the orders for parliamentary boundary changes, so that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer becomes leader he can fight the election on the new boundaries?

Jack Straw: I promise the right hon. Gentleman that I am involved in a spirited discussion with the Department for Constitutional Affairs about introducing the boundary change orders. I have been told that the problem is printing and binding delays—[Hon. Members: "Oh!] I am not convinced that that is the reason, and I am pursuing the matter with vigour. I repeat my commitment to the House that the orders will be introduced in good time for a general election. Everyone knows that by law it is not open to Government to seek to amend the orders, and we shall not do so.

Mark Lazarowicz: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 791, which highlights the plight of hundreds of my constituents who still await a decision on a flood defence scheme seven years after their houses were flooded?
	 [That this House notes that it is now seven years since hundreds of residents along the Water of Leith in Edinburgh suffered severe flooding; further notes that the City of Edinburgh Council speedily drew up a flood defence scheme which it submitted to the Scottish Executive for approval; further notes that a report was submitted from the public inquiry into the scheme in September 2005, and that a decision on the scheme has been awaited ever since; and urges the Liberal Democrat Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie MSP, not to delay any further in reaching a decision, but to approve the scheme as soon as possible in order to end the uncertainty endured by residents in the affected area.]
	Will my right hon. Friend support the call for the Liberal Democrat Minister for Environment and Rural Development, who has been sitting on the plans for two years in the Scottish Executive, to make a decision so that my constituents' uncertainty can be ended?

Jack Straw: Yes, we put large sums of money into flood defences. I am sad that the Liberal Democrat Minister in Scotland has been sitting on his hands for the past two years, but it does not surprise me, because it has always been clear to me that people join the Liberal Democrats only if they are congenitally incapable of accepting responsibility and making decisions.

Pete Wishart: Last week, the Leader of the House kindly agreed to a debate on the Act of Union. Will he make sure that the motion covers the West Lothian question, so that a Minister can explain to me from the Dispatch Box why it is fair and democratic for Scottish Members of this Parliament not to have a vote on health services in Perth, while, almost perversely, they can vote on health services in Penrith and Penzance? Why should the people of England put up with that for a minute longer?

Jack Straw: I sometimes wonder why the House should put up with the hon. Gentleman for a minute longer—but I am a generous man. What I said was that I would consider the request, but there have already been debates on the West Lothian question, which is central to the issue of how we bind the Union or whether we wish, as he does, to destroy it. Equally, he could ask why, within the Union, Members from England have a dominant role in the financing of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. As I said two weeks ago, the system is asymmetrical, but it is very fair, and it takes account of the fact that, as he knows, proportionately, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland represent only 16 per cent. of the United Kingdom's total population and resources. English MPs, whatever their party, wholly dominate spending decisions that affect Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I think that that system works, and I am in absolutely no doubt that if a referendum on independence were held in Scotland it would be wholly rejected.

David Anderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 24 February, the British National party will effectively be recognised as a trade union by the certification officer? May we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that that organisation will not be allowed to exploit employment laws to spread its obnoxious policies?

Jack Straw: I shall certainly look at the point made by my hon. Friend, and ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State writes to him.

Justine Greening: Will the Leader of the House allow us to have a debate on access to drug treatment for sufferers of ultra-orphan conditions, which are extremely rare. Last March, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence proposed that the Department of Health introduce different guidelines so that it could review those drugs, which are necessarily more expensive, as the costs are spread among fewer patients. Last year, however, the Department rejected the NICE proposal so that sufferers of rare conditions in Britain have no prospect of access to new treatment. May we have a debate, because that is not the right way to progress the issue?

Jack Straw: Of course I understand the hon. Lady's concern. Health questions will take place next Tuesday, and she has not missed the deadline, so I suggest that she table a question. There is, I think, cross-party agreement that the NICE arrangement for independent assessment of new drug treatments is sensible, and better than the alternative. Whoever is in government, there are critical and difficult questions about whether to approve drugs and make them generally available. That is the reality, but I am aware that some individuals at the margin are disadvantaged and are in a difficult position.

Tony Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the independence of the civil service, particularly the duty of hon. Members not to attack civil servants unfairly? May I draw his attention to the case of Mockbul Ali, with whom I believe he has been in contact? Mr. Ali was attacked by the Conservative party in its recent policy document on national security, but he could not answer, so perhaps we ought to address that in the House.

Jack Straw: That is a good idea. Having read that Conservative document, which is an assemblage of various allegations off Google, I thought that the attack on Mr. Mockbul Ali, who is an official who worked for me in the Foreign Office, was wholly unwarranted and unworthy of the Conservative party. As far as I could see, his only offence is that he happens to be a Muslim working as a civil servant. I hope that the Conservative party will withdraw that, and much else in that document.

Paul Burstow: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 108 concerning the Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust.
	 [That this House recognises the vital role which the St Helier Hospital plays in providing healthcare services to residents of the London boroughs of Sutton and Merton and of Surrey; notes with alarm that the Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust has been asked to make cuts of £20 million over the next two years; expresses its concern at the growing body of evidence suggesting that the hospital may be closed or that significant cuts will be made to hospital services; acknowledges the widespread support for the hospital from local residents; notes that any closure of services would have a significant impact on local people, resulting in longer travel times, inconvenience and a lower standard of care; and calls on the Government urgently to guarantee that the full range of existing healthcare services will continue to be provided at sites within the London Borough of Sutton.]
	May we have a debate on the freedom of information rules that have been used by the trust to refuse to disclose information about the pay-off made to the former chief executive of the trust, which is believed to be about £600,000, at a time when the trust is cash-strapped and being forced to make cuts in both beds and clinical staff?

Jack Straw: If the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue the matter in an Adjournment debate, he is aware of the opportunities. As he knows, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which I introduced as Home Secretary, if the health trust has indeed turned down the request, as he says, those who make the request have a right of appeal to an independent tribunal. I hope they are pursuing that.

Andrew Pelling: Will the Leader of the House investigate an allegation that I received recently about the treatment of Public and Commercial Service Union members following an incident in Parliament square yesterday? The PCS members drove in an open-top coach along Whitehall and through Parliament square and parked in Horse Guards parade. Those who came off the bus were asked by the police to give their names and addresses because African drums and a megaphone had been used as they drove through Parliament square. Is that not a heavy-handed approach to demonstrations outside Parliament, as the bus was merely passing through? I am sorry that I have not put the allegations in writing, but I have been able to verify them only in the past 20 minutes.

Jack Straw: I have many responsibilities, but the investigation of complaints against the police is not one of them. The hon. Gentleman knows, and can advise his constituents, that there are obvious well-tried routes laid down in statute by which, if they are concerned, they can make a complaint against the police.

Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend knows that the Government have done much to change the law governing rape and sexual offences. May we have a debate on the subject, to enable us to highlight some of the remaining anomalies? For example, a constituent of mine was refused compensation through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority on the absurd grounds that she had not suffered violence.

Jack Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's concern and I will do what I can to see that there is an opportunity to debate the matter. He will know that under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, there is some limited right of appeal. I cannot comment on that particular case, but I say to the House as a whole that it is widely accepted that under changes that we have made in the past 10 years, treatment of rape victims has improved considerably, to the extent that more rape victims are coming forward to make allegations. One of the results is that the proportion of so-called stranger rapes to acquaintance rapes has changed. The vast majority—getting on for 90 per cent.—of the allegations now made are so-called acquaintance rapes, where the issue is not whether intercourse took place or the identity of the alleged assailant, but whether there was consent. That is very difficult to prove or disprove in court.

Nadine Dorries: May we have a debate on MRSA, even though the House has just had one? In the opening comments of the Secretary of State for Health in the recent debate on MRSA, she cited a visit that she had made to the Royal Marsden hospital the previous day. The Royal Marsden hospital has one of the lowest MRSA rates in the country, and she attributed that to the use of hand rubs, different coloured aprons, and electronic records. What the Secretary of State failed to mention, even though there were several interventions about hospital nurses' uniforms—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This seems to be an extension of the debate last week. We cannot have that. The hon. Lady should ask for a debate about the matter, not put the case. Perhaps I could help her by suggesting that if she felt that the Secretary of State was not as well informed as she should have been, the hon. Lady could ask for a debate.

Nadine Dorries: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State was not as well informed as she should have been. The Royal Marsden does launder uniforms. Could we therefore have another debate?

Jack Straw: As the Speaker said, the hon. Lady has already started the debate. There are Health questions next Tuesday, so she can table a question to the Secretary of State for Health today for answer on Tuesday.

Brian Iddon: When we had a drugs tsar and he produced an annual report, we used to debate it on the Floor of the House. I gather that in the very near future the Government are to review the national drugs strategy. Is it not time that we debated that important policy area again on the Floor of the House?

Jack Straw: I accept the importance of that matter, and I will give consideration to whether we can have such a debate on the Floor of the House.

Brian Binley: May I add my voice to those calling for a debate on the process of the restructuring of local government, including the cost of that process? Ministers throw about glib phrases about it being cost-neutral, which most people understand to mean very expensive indeed. This matter needs considering before we proceed.

Jack Straw: It is being looked at before we proceed. Areas may decide that they do not want to move. It is always an issue of controversy, but from my own constituency experience, although there were some marginal restructuring costs, the benefits to my constituents, whatever their political affiliations, of changing to a unitary authority have been huge.

Iain Wright: May we have a debate on the new £625 million contract for premiership football games to be shown overseas? As far as I can see, the only change that the contract will make is that premiership footballers' basic salaries will change from £20,000 a week to £60,000 a week. That is obscene. None of the money is flowing down the game to the grass roots, and the gap between the premiership and other lower leagues, especially the one in which Hartlepool United plays, is getting wider. As a Blackburn Rovers fan, will my right hon. Friend arrange time to discuss the matter so that we can redistribute that wealth across football in general?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We look to the premier league to ensure that, with the additional funds, it makes football, whether in the premiership or lower down, more accessible to individuals so that they can go to the grounds. I am indeed a Blackburn Rovers fan. I had the misfortune to go to the away end at Stamford bridge yesterday, and paid £45 for the privilege of watching Blackburn Rovers being beaten 3-0 by Chelsea. I may be able to afford £45, but it is a great deal of money, so there is a real issue. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that Blackburn Rovers are, as ever, in the lead and have already taken steps to lower their prices to attract more people to the game, because the game as a whole, and the premiership offer, will suffer grievously if people see empty stadiums. That is what has happened in other countries. One of the reasons why the premiership is such a saleable product, so to speak, across the world is because of the fans who turn up week after week and support not just the glory teams, but the real teams in any of the leagues.

Mr. Speaker: May I say to the Leader of the House that that did not seem to have much to do with the business of the House?

David Howarth: May we have a debate on why the Prime Minister will not answer questions about the loans scandal? I asked him about it yesterday, and he said that the answer was obvious. It is not entirely obvious to me why he cannot say that he is innocent, or that he has complete confidence in the people who have been arrested. If the answer is the really obvious one, I do not see how he is still Prime Minister.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer. It is perfectly obvious why the Prime Minister cannot answer such questions while there is a continuing police investigation.

Jim Sheridan: May we have a debate on equality and balanced reporting in our press and media? Although it is right and proper that we should take every measure possible to stamp out racism and sectarianism, I am somewhat concerned that my sensitivities are being ignored. As someone who is often described as a white, fat, half-bald man, I am genuinely concerned that my views are not taken into consideration. Can my right hon. Friend suggest a way in which my sensitivities can be addressed—or do I just need a wee cuddle?

Jack Straw: The aim of equality legislation is to take everybody's sensibilities into account, including those of my hon. Friend.

John Hayes: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the growing sad army of NEETs—young people between the ages of 16 and 24 not in employment, education or training—whose numbers have rocketed since this Government came to power? With demand for unskilled labour falling, there is a real chance that we are creating an underclass. That is incompatible with social responsibility, social cohesion or social justice, and it deserves the House's earnest, ardent and urgent consideration.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman raises an important topic, and I will certainly think about whether we can have a debate on it. He will know that part of the purpose of the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to extend the compulsory education age from 16 to 18 is to deal with that group. We have invested a huge amount of money, for example in welfare-to-work programmes, to provide better opportunities for many such youngsters. I accept that this is a matter for all parties. Because the number of unskilled jobs is declining, we have to work hard almost to stand still in providing opportunities for those who previously would have worked as factory labourers but for whom such opportunities are no longer available.

Keith Vaz: Could we have an urgent debate about the treatment of British citizens in Saudi Arabia during haj visits? On 9 December the 36-year-old wife of my constituent, Rafiq Gorji, was killed in a coach crash, and he was dragged along the ground, suffering burns to his hands, head and back. When I met the deputy Saudi ambassador yesterday, he referred me to the British ambassador in Riyadh. I spoke to our excellent ambassador there, who clearly stated that this is a matter for the Saudi Government. I know that my right hon. Friend set up the haj committee, and I have spoken to Lord Patel. However, this is a friendly country with which we have strong relations, and it is surely in the public interest to ensure that the case is dealt with. Could we therefore have an urgent debate?

Jack Straw: I accept my right hon. Friend's concern and ask him to send my personal condolences to the family concerned. It is a very distressing case. The Minister for the Middle East has already written to tour operators to draw their attention to the terrible consequences of this accident and the need to enforce regulations on bus safety and bus drivers' hours. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to raise the matter with the Saudi Foreign Minister.

Mark Lancaster: Can we have a further debate on affordable housing, which remains a priority in Milton Keynes? Does the Leader of the House understand my constituents' frustration, given that last summer the Government trumpeted the introduction of a new £60,000 house, which we discovered this week had gone on sale for £189,500? Is that what he calls affordable?

Jack Straw: I am afraid that I am not an expert on house prices in Milton Keynes—

Mark Lancaster: Why not?

Jack Straw: I know that it is a dereliction of my duty. I accept the criticism, and I will consider my position. What else can I say? It is an abject failure.  [ Interruption. ] Here comes the Opposition Chief Whip.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about high house prices—for first-time buyers in particular—which we all share. However, we have a done a great deal—rather more than the previous Government—to try to ameliorate the situation.

Evan Harris: I hope that the House would agree, Mr. Speaker, that the private religious views of yourself, myself, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and even the Leader of the House, are not and should not be material to Government policy. If the Leader of the House accepts that, may I put to him again the question that I put to him last week? Can we have a debate on the role of religious organisations in delivering public services, with particular regard to whether it would be sensible for them to agree not to discriminate against service receivers or their employees, or to proselytise or harass when delivering welfare, social and other public services, after which they can make their contribution?

Jack Straw: As I said last week, I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman's views, if I do not altogether share them. There are plenty of occasions on which he can raise this matter. For example, the issue of faith schools, and whether their head teachers should be required to adhere to that faith, is regularly debated in this House. As a liberal western democracy, we should absolutely respect people's right to hold, or not to hold, religious opinions. At the same time, most of us believe that we should take account of our country's history and the important contribution that faith groups make, not only to private worship but to public services.

Bob Spink: The Leader of the House will recall that the Prime Minister showed great courage, generosity and good sense in giving £27 million to the children's hospice movement to replace the falling off of national lottery funding last year, and in setting up a review to secure fair funding for it. That review is coming to an end, and its recommendations will be presented to the Minister concerned at the end of February. Will the Leader of the House look to hold an early debate after that so that the House can show its strong cross-party support for the children's hospice movement and its fair funding?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the approbation that he offers to the Prime Minister, who is very committed to this issue. I cannot promise a debate, but I will certainly ensure that his views are made known to the Prime Minister and to the relevant Minister.

MSC Napoli

Stephen Ladyman: With permission, Mr. Speaker, this statement is to update the House on the events leading to the beaching of the MSC Napoli at Lyme bay, east of Sidmouth. It follows my earlier written statement to the House on 25 January.
	During severe weather conditions on the morning of 18 January, the MSC Napoli, a UK-registered vessel, suffered flooding in her engine room on the French side of the English channel. The MSC Napoli's master took the decision that the danger to the vessel was sufficient to order the crew to abandon the ship. All the crew were successfully rescued by UK helicopter from royal naval air station Culdrose. The marine accident investigation branch is carrying out a full investigation into the causes of the structural damage.
	The English channel is a zone of joint responsibility between France and the UK as regards maritime pollution incidents. There is an Anglo-French joint maritime contingency plan, which is usually referred to as the Mancheplan. The French and English authorities were faced with a large container ship known to be carrying a cargo that included potentially hazardous materials and to have more than 3,500 tonnes of fuel oil on board. Particular account had to be taken of the strong advice from environmental experts that the ship's cargo and oil would need to be recovered and should not be left to sink in deep water. The effects of sinking in deep water would have been serious long-term environmental damage. In the first instance, there would be the strong possibility of a large release of oil and spreading of the cargo caused by the trauma of the vessel striking the seabed. In any case, the oil would have escaped and found its way on to many beaches on both sides of the English channel for many years, whereas in shallow waters the hydrocarbons and other pollutants could be recovered as soon as possible.
	In line with the Mancheplan, French authorities led the initial response to the incident, liaising closely throughout with the UK Secretary of State's representative for maritime salvage and intervention—commonly known as SOSREP. French tugs arrived on the scene promptly. A French Government intervention team went on board the vessel. Having made an on-scene assessment of its condition, experts concluded that its state was such that it was unlikely to survive prolonged exposure to severe weather conditions. To prevent a serious marine pollution incident, the French and UK authorities decided that the vessel should be towed to a place of refuge where she could be dealt with in a controlled manner. The need for a place of refuge and its location are always driven by the circumstances of an incident, including the weather, the size and condition of the vessel and the potential threat posed by the vessel and its cargo. Taking all those factors into account, the French authorities were unable to identify a suitable place of refuge on the French coast within about 200 miles.
	All other options were on the UK south coast from Falmouth to Portland. A full risk assessment was carried out to determine a location providing best shelter and chance of survival to offload oil and hazardous cargo. None of the main ports, including Falmouth and Plymouth, had sufficient depth of water. The Falmouth harbour-master reported that the vessel could have anchored outside the harbour, but that Falmouth could not handle or store containers. Moreover, transit to Falmouth, because of the direction of travel and the state of the sea, would have exposed the casualty to severe stress. There was no safe option to enter any south coast port.
	An anchorage with good shelter from south-west winds was needed. The most suitable option was Portland because it affords shelter combined with good access to port facilities and, later, the potential for moving the ship into the inner harbour. It also meant that the vessel could be towed in a direction that minimised the stress on its hull. A tow was attached on the evening of 18 January. However, in the early hours of 20 January, the cracks on both sides of the ship worsened and the stern of the ship started settling lower in the water. It became clear that the MSC Napoli would not reach Portland. The priority was to keep the vessel intact, as there was real concern that it might start to break up.
	That concern was urgent and a decision had to be taken without delay. In accordance with the UK's national contingency plan, environmental groups and local authorities were consulted. Moreover, through forward planning, which is an integral part of the UK system, SOSREP had the necessary knowledge about the suitability of locations as a place of refuge for this vessel. SOSREP decided that the only viable option was to beach the ship in shallow water, where there was a greater chance of successful salvage, and decided to turn the vessel towards an identified beaching site in the shelter of Lyme bay. SOSREP regularly updated me throughout the incident.
	A small amount of fuel oil leaked during efforts to beach the ship and a boom was deployed to contain the leak. Booms were placed across the rivers Brit and Axe to help prevent oil entering. A relatively small amount of oil has leaked from the MSC Napoli since it was beached. On 24 January, 10 tonnes of oil leaked from an air pipe on the vessel and was sprayed with dispersant. Two French oil recovery ships remain on scene. An offshore boom is available and additional workboats carrying oil dispersants are in the area. There are daily aerial surveillance flights.
	The MSC Napoli was carrying approximately 2,300 containers, of which 157 contained potentially hazardous materials, including perfume, pesticides and batteries. The contents of all containers have now been identified. Altogether, 103 containers were lost overboard, 57 of which were washed ashore, and we are searching for the other 46. Sampling of sediments and marine wildlife in the area began on Tuesday. As of Tuesday, 900 live oiled birds had been handed to the RSPCA, while 700 had been found dead.
	Salvors were engaged at a very early stage in the incident. It was necessary for some work vessels and equipment to be brought from Rotterdam and these were despatched at the earliest possible opportunity. Work on removing the Napoli's bunker oil is continuing apace. About 2,600 tonnes of bunker fuel have been removed. The salvors are averaging 20 tonnes per hour and we expect to have removed most of the remaining fuel by the end of Sunday.
	The process of removing containers from the MSC Napoli is also underway. As more containers are removed, the stress on the ship's hull decreases, as does the risk of break-up. A crane barge is removing containers and passing them to a container barge that can take them ashore. Every precaution is being taken to ensure safety. It is expected that the removal of all the cargo will take between five to eight months to complete.
	As of 4 pm yesterday, 70 containers had been removed and we expect to move more at a rate of around 30 containers a day. The bad weather that hampered operations initially has now subsided and the current forecast is calm weather for the weekend. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has been liaising with the local fishing community to ensure that the route of the barge does not cross any deployed fishing equipment. Once all containers are removed, the ship itself will be salvaged. It is impossible to predict the challenges faced by the salvors. At worst, the entire operation—pumping out the oil, lifting off the cargo and removing the ship itself—could take 12 months. However, every effort will be made to bring this incident to a successful conclusion as soon as possible.
	Volunteers have offered help to the MCA and local authorities. While we appreciate these offers, we are strongly urging members of the public, for health and safety reasons, not to join the clean-up operation. We have all seen footage of people removing items from the beach. As a result, the beach at Branscombe was fenced off and made secure. Because substantial progress was made with the removal of the litter from the beach, Branscombe beach, west has now been opened to the public and regular patrols are in place to ensure the quick recovery of any washed-up goods. Local police have contingency arrangements in place to prevent a recurrence of last week's behaviour.
	SOSREP is continuing to lead the response to the incident. Our thanks are due to that representative and all those working with him to bring the incident to the safest and swiftest conclusion practicable with the minimum possible impact on the environment. SOSREP's decision in respect of a place of refuge and the salvage operation was entirely transparent and thoroughly professional.
	It is worth recording that the European Commision's senior maritime official, Fotis Karamitsos, last week endorsed our SOSREP system, which he regards as a model for other EU states. He supported SOSREP's decision to beach the MSC Napoli rather than tow it to port as originally planned, because it
	"diminished the risk of catastrophe".
	I receive daily reports on the situation from SOSREP. I am reassured that the national contingency plan has enabled us to take prompt and appropriate action. I am pleased to see the co-operation between SOSREP and all the parties concerned, including the French authorities. This incident has once again demonstrated why the UK's SOSREP arrangement is so much admired by our international colleagues.

Julian Brazier: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to see an advance copy of his statement. He has taken a close personal interest in this matter from the beginning. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) whose commitment as the constituency MP has been exemplary.
	The House should congratulate the French authorities, SOSREP, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Environment Agency, and, above all, the men and women of royal naval squadron 771, who bravely took on mountainous waves and gale force winds to save the 26 crew members. The rescue exemplified the highest standards of the Royal Navy. It was executed amid waves higher than the helicopter itself. When we see press reports stating that the men and women involved may be given a bravery award, I want to ask the Minister whether he really believes that such courage and commitment should be rewarded by handing over Britain's elite RAF and royal naval search and rescue operations to a private finance initiative, with uniformed people just embedded in it.
	Moving on to the vessel itself, once the marine accident investigation branch has finished its inquiry, we will need to know how it was that a ship given a clean bill of health in Antwerp only five days before, almost cracked down the middle off the coast of Devon. Indeed, it appears that there have been concerns about this vessel since it ran aground on a reef in the Malacca straits six years ago.
	Had the Napoli been out in the Atlantic when her sides cracked open, the main story might not have been the looters at the bay, but the tragic death of 26 seafarers. Yet this was a British registered vessel. It was our duty as the flag state to make sure she was seaworthy. The inquiry must answer questions about that. Can the Minister also reassure the House that the British coastguard carries out sufficient port state control inspections of foreign flagged vessels visiting UK ports, as is our duty under the Paris memorandum of understanding?
	Do we know yet whether there is evidence to suggest that human error played any part in the accident? Last year, Steve Allum of Aon Global Marine—one of the world's specialists in marine risk—warned that, due to the employment of under-trained but considerably cheaper crews,
	"the possibility of human error is significantly higher and will inevitably lead to increased accidents".
	A ship crewed by people from eastern Europe, the Philippines, Turkey and India must surely have suffered from language problems and possibly training problems, too. Will that be investigated?
	Although the beaching of the vessel at the world heritage site of Lyme bay caused understandable and widespread concern—indeed, dismay—this was, as the Minister says, the only feasible place to shelter the boat. The worst outcome would have been for the vessel to have sunk in the open sea. In its fragile state, had it been towed away, it would have had to face the gale side on and would almost certainly have broken up—with horrendous environmental consequences.
	Nevertheless, the ship has offloaded significant hazards into the sea. Will the Minister say something about containers that may still be floating at sea? It is good to hear that most of the rest of the fuel will be cleared by Sunday, but is there an estimate of the extent of the residue?
	Mercifully, we have heard reports of only 1,500 oiled birds and 600 corpses so far. That is modest in view of the potential scale of the damage. I salute the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the RSPCA for their efforts. Has the Minister commissioned an environmental impact assessment on the marine environment, especially the Lyme bay coral reefs and bird life?
	May I urge, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon did before, revisiting our ancient salvage laws? Surely earlier action could have been taken against the unacceptable looting, which rightly caused so much public disgust.
	I end where I began in congratulating the Royal Navy and all the various agencies, French as well as British, on a magnificent rescue and a successful damage limitation and clean-up operation.

Stephen Ladyman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive comments and join him in congratulating the RAF crew. I agree that they were magnificent in the way in which they carried out the rescue under difficult circumstances. It required huge bravery.
	The hon. Gentleman went on to ask whether we should examine the organisation of air-sea rescue and whether it was appropriate to include it in a PFI. That is a continuing process, on which we are working with the Ministry of Defence and the RAF. The RAF will be an integral part of any future arrangements that we might devise. However, we have a duty to ensure that services are cost-effective. I guarantee that there will be no compromise on safety or the service that air-sea rescue offers.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned other issues, several of which related to the possible causes of the accident. I am sure that he understands that I cannot speculate on that. The marine accident investigation branch will carry out an independent study, as it always does into all marine incidents, publish its report and place it in the public domain. Its investigation is unfettered and will identify the cause of the accident. If it could have been addressed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, that information will be put in the public domain and appropriate action will be taken.
	I was glad that the hon. Gentleman agreed that Lyme bay was the only appropriate place to beach the vessel. By doing that, we avoided a much worse environmental catastrophe. Although I appreciate that local people are distressed, I hope that they are reassured that beaching the ship on Lyme bay was better than the alternatives.
	There is an on-going search for the remaining containers. We suspect that the vast majority sank around the boat and sonar investigations are trying to identify them. There was a report of a container afloat further down the coast and that was investigated. Many reports are coming in of goods at various points along the coast but most turn out not to relate to the incident. I assure the hon. Gentleman that every effort is being made to identify floating containers, especially when they might be a hazard to shipping.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the salvage laws. When we conduct a wash-up on the matter, we will decide whether we need to reconsider laws but, at the moment, I feel—I put it no more strongly—that the laws existed and people had powers but did not understand that sufficiently quickly. Perhaps we can learn from that.

Paul Rowen: May I also thank the Minister for an advance copy of his statement and echo other hon. Members' sentiments about the role of the RAF? As has been said, the catastrophe could have been much greater.
	Has the Minister read the interview in today's  Western Morning News with Robin Middleton, who is the Government's representative in the area? He states that the cargo ship has fractured completely. If that is the case, what assessment has been made of the effects of further pollution in the event of the vessel giving way entirely? The local fishing associations are worried about that.
	We have a rule that the polluter pays, but second-order issues, such as costs incurred by local authorities, have been raised with me. Will the Minister assure us that all those costs will be met once the incident is sorted out?
	Concern has rightly been expressed about Lyme bay and its ecological importance. Does the Minister agree that the provisions of a marine Bill would have given the bay greater protection? Does not the incident make the case for identifying known refuge areas? Perhaps that would have prevented Lyme bay from being affected to such an extent. Will the Minister confirm that the MAIB's terms of reference for its inquiry into the Napoli incident include consideration of that? I understand the points that have been made about the conditions and the reasons for choosing Lyme bay, but I am sure that the Minister understands local concerns about the effects of that. Will the report therefore consider whether alternative ports could have been used? Will the MAIB investigation hold hearings in public?
	Does the Minister know that, three days before the Napoli was grounded, Devon county council asked for better protection of its coastline? Will he meet councillors and local Members of Parliament to discuss what can be done better to protect it?

Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive comments. I am afraid that the  Western Morning News is not normally served with my breakfast.

David Heath: Why not?

Stephen Ladyman: Clearly, I shall have to put that right in future. I have not read the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred but I have spoken to SOSREP since he gave the interview, and he was concerned that some of his comments might be taken out of context. I believe that he was trying to explain to the journalist that the vessel had suffered significant damage and that there was a risk of further break-up. Consequently, he appropriately put together several contingency plans based on what might happen under those circumstances. One hopes that they will not be necessary. Every time a container is taken off the ship, the stress on it becomes less and the likelihood of break-up or further damage is reduced. I hope that we can get through the process without further major spillage. If we can get all the oil off by the end of Sunday, the risk of serious oil pollution is minimal. Plans are therefore in place if the worst happens, but that is not expected at the moment.
	Local authorities should make an appropriate claim through the civil courts for the recovery of their costs. We will support them in that. We have spoken to the owners' representative and been informed of their views. They are being constructive and helpful and do not appear to penny-pinch in any way. I am therefore confident that we can resolve everybody's claims satisfactorily.
	A marine Bill would have made no difference to the incident. Such a measure would not alter SOSREP's decisions in such circumstances. When SOSREP is faced with the possibility of environmental catastrophe if a ship is allowed to sink in deep water, he has to take account of myriad things. Of course, he will consider the environmental sensitivity of a particular area, and weigh up whether less sensitive areas are an option. Ultimately, however, he must make sure that the vessel can either be put into a harbour safely or beached safely. A marine Bill would not have made any difference, and nor would any other device that Devon county council has been asking for to protect that stretch of coastline. By taking action we have protected the coastline, as the area would have suffered from pollution for many years to come had the vessel been allowed to sink at sea.

John McDonnell: May I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests as the convenor of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group?
	The House is now aware that the vessel was British-flagged and that it was grounded in 2001. Is the Minister also aware that maritime unions have blacklisted the company that owns the vessel because of its operations, standards and practices? May I suggest that it is now a matter of urgency that we look again at how British flagging procedures secure the health and safety of working practices on British-flagged vessels?

Stephen Ladyman: I understand my hon. Friend's concern over the issue. He and the unions with which he often works have made representations to me about the issue previously. I can tell him—perhaps I should also have said this in response to the question from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen)—that the MAIB investigation will consider all the factors that contributed to the event. If it turns out that the management, crewing or communication among the crew of the vessel was responsible, or that the MCA could have done something better to prevent the incident, that will emerge in the findings, which will be published in the accident report. I assure my hon. Friend that action will then be taken.

Hugo Swire: As the local Member of Parliament, may I pay tribute to the excellence of the contractors working around the clock on the beach in Branscombe who have already removed 50 tonnes of scrap metal and have 100 tonnes to go? The Minister is absolutely right: it should be said loudly and clearly that Branscombe is open for business. I urge Members to come and see that for themselves during their Easter and summer holidays. It is a great place, and they would get a warm welcome.
	Given the principle that the polluter pays, to whom should my constituents make claims if they have suffered loss of bookings? Whom does the Minister think would make up the shortfall, if there is any, both in the short and the longer term?

Stephen Ladyman: First, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has represented constituents and for his constructive approach to the issue. None of us would have liked this type of accident in our constituency, and he could have been forgiven for getting angry about it, but he has not done so; he has dealt with it professionally and appropriately.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the contractors and to say that Branscombe is open for business. I understand that the vessel is something of a tourist attraction at the moment, and I have no doubt that the businesses of Branscombe are cashing in on that. In the spring and summer, I hope that people throughout the country will continue to take their holidays and visit there, and I hope that many Members of the House do so too. When the risk of pollution has passed, I hope that the sight of the vessel offshore will act as a tourist attraction to bring more people to the village.
	If anyone has any difficulty in understanding to whom they need to make an appropriate claim, they should, of course, take advice. If the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss such issues on behalf of his constituents in future, I would be happy to meet him to ensure that everybody knows exactly what they need to do.

Adrian Sanders: The Minister rightly praised the RAF and the coastguard, but he was remiss in not congratulating the salvors who are working 24 hours a day. But for their fantastic work, the disaster in Lyme bay would have been much worse.
	Given the history of the vessel, why was it not taken into Falmouth or Plymouth? If that action had been taken, rather than going past Torbay and the entire length of the Jurassic coast to get to Portland, the vessel would never have had to be beached.

Stephen Ladyman: The vessel did not go to those ports because the direction of travel of the wind and tides at the time was such that the assessment was made that it would not reach them. As I said in my initial statement, there is no provision at Falmouth for the offloading of containers even had the vessel managed to reach there. The decision taken was appropriate. Such matters are always judgment calls. There will always be people who, with the benefit of hindsight, say that the vessel could have gone here or there. The man in command must make the decision in a short space of time, however, and he must do what he thinks is best. That is what SOSREP did, and I am afraid that we must back him when he does that.
	On the salvors, I did thank SOSREP and his team. Indeed, his wider team consisted of much more than salvors: it included environmentalists, the owners' representative, people who were brought in from the MCA, and others who were brought in to make recommendations on tides and the inventory of the cargo so that we knew exactly what we were dealing with. It has been a real team effort, and the salvors have been very professional.
	I should also particularly thank the French authorities. The French Minister, Monsieur Dominique Perben, telephoned me the next morning to thank us for our efforts. He has continued to make resources available to us for the rescue, and we have had a further conversation since then. The resolution of the issue has been a good example of teamwork not only in SOSREP's team but internationally.

Oliver Letwin: May I thank the Minister for the effective way in which he has kept my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), me and the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) informed about the matter? I visited the beaches affected in West Dorset last week, and I was delighted to see that they have all been properly cleared, as well as being impressed by the people doing that work.
	I gather, however, that about 20 per cent. of the oil remains to be taken off the vessel. The Minister will be aware that a fairly large number of oiled birds have been beached, particularly in Abbotsbury in my constituency. I hear that that oil has been taken off by a hot-tapping procedure. Does he feel that it will be removed from the vessel without further environmental damage to the east in my constituency?

Stephen Ladyman: Again, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive attitude. He will be aware that, at one point, we thought that his constituency would have the benefit of the vessel. He faced up to that with equanimity, and I can tell his hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) that he did not tell SOSREP to move it down the coast; that decision was taken entirely by SOSREP.
	I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has visited the site: I am glad that it is now being cleaned up, and we need to keep it that way. As one of his colleagues has suggested that Ministers have not visited the site, let me put on record that I visited the salvage operation team on Monday, and the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare visited an RSPCA site to see the operation to clean up the birds. We made those visits privately, so that we did not create a media scrum and detract from the real work going on. The right hon. Gentleman is right that there have been a number of oiled birds, but that is always the case. Although the number has increased, it has not done so dramatically, but any further damage must be dealt with.
	On the issue of hot-tapping, the oil remaining on the vessel is in a difficult tank to reach. The process is slow, and the oil is very cold and thick, so it must be warmed up before it can be removed. I am as confident as I can be that it will all be safely removed by the end of the weekend. Of course, things can go wrong, but, thankfully, it looks like the weather will be okay. Once all the oil is off the vessel, I think that we will be able to say that there will be no serious environmental consequences as a result of the incident.

Points of Order

Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday in Prime Minister's questions and again today in business questions, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House refused to answer any questions on the cash for honours investigation. Given that no one has been charged in the investigation and given that there is no sub judice, surely Ministers can answer questions about a matter of supreme public interest.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must inform the hon. Gentleman that that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Judy Mallaber: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning in Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, the Department's officials allowed a question on discussions by Ministers with the Indian Government on climate change, but transferred my question on what discussions they had had on tropical rainforests, a key factor in relation to climate change. Given that I am sure that Environment Ministers would like to discuss that very important part of their remit with hon. Members, can you advise me how that can be proceeded with so that DEFRA officials allow this important subject on to the agenda for discussion with Members?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that that is a matter for the Department. I suggest that the hon. Lady pursues it with the relevant Ministers.

Nadine Dorries: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I voted for the Equality Bill, I voted with good intentions. However, nowhere in the Bill did it say that it would compromise the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Christianity has been here for more than 2,000 years and it will be here for a long time after this Government have gone. If I could vote again on that Bill, I would not do so. Will you advise Members on how they can be better informed about what will be contained in a Bill in future?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a matter of debate and argument. It is inappropriate to put that to the Chair.

Defence in the World

[Relevant documents: The Fifth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2005-06, on the UK deployment to Afghanistan, HC 558, and the Government's response thereto (Sixth Special Report, Session 2005-06, HC 1211), and the Thirteenth Report, Session 2005-06, on UK Operations in Iraq, HC 1241, and the Government's response thereto (Twelfth Special Report, Session 2005-06, HC 1603).]
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Liz Blackman.]

Des Browne: I am grateful for the opportunity to open this important debate on defence in the world. Let me start by paying tribute to the work of the UK armed forces, the Ministry of Defence's civilian staff, members of other Departments and members of the services, including the police and the Prison Service, who are deployed around the world, working in difficult, often arduous circumstances, defending our interests and security. We owe them a great debt of gratitude.
	Rarely in recent years have we had demonstrated so clearly the role that our armed forces play in the world. Right now more than 20,000 personnel are overseas working in the defence of the UK, its people and its interests. We are undertaking two major campaigns and a host of other tasks to deliver security, enable development and reconstruction, build confidence and strengthen the security capacity of our friends and allies. Nowhere are those aims more relevant, or the challenges to them more pronounced, than in Iraq. I was there yesterday—my fourth trip in the nine months that I have been in this job. As ever, I was immensely proud of the work that all our people are doing there, both civilian and military, working together to improve the life of the Iraqi people.
	The 12 million Iraqis who voted for peace and opportunity remain resolute in the face of far too many days marred by sectarian murder and terrorist atrocities. The politicians who represent those people tell me that Iraq is making progress—frustratingly slow perhaps, but outside Baghdad and the surrounding areas the situation is far from the hopelessness that is often played out on our TV screens, although it is understandable that those incidents of violence attract the attention of our media. That is not to say that all is well. Security is still the No. 1 problem, but perhaps what people back here in the UK do not realise is that 80 per cent. of the violence is concentrated within 30 miles of Baghdad. That is why I have welcomed the US and Iraqi Governments' new plan for Baghdad without any sense that it is inconsistent with our approach. The security situation there demands it, whereas in the south the environment is different.
	I met Prime Minister Maliki and a number of Ministers from across the Iraqi Government and discussed the new Baghdad security plan with them. Their energy and commitment to making the plan work was both impressive and, to some degree, inspiring. They are behind the plan, and they tell me that the people are behind the plan, but it is up to them to make it work. It has to be an Iraqi-led plan, using significant Iraqi resources, if it is to succeed. While the US is putting in more troops to help support the plan, the Iraqi army is increasing its presence in the city and will be right beside them. In addition, the Iraqi Government are investing $10 billion in reconstruction and infrastructure projects. The investment is crucial because, as I have said so often about Iraq and Afghanistan, the answers are never purely about what the military can do. That is why this plan has to be a plan for all Iraqis, Sunni and Shi'a alike. Consequently, I welcome Prime Minister Maliki's pledge that sectarian interference will not be tolerated.
	I was in Baghdad during the festival of Ashurah and met Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who told me that that morning he had been to speak at a celebration of the festival in a part of the city where a Sunni shrine and a Shi'a shrine are close together. He told me with some pride that thousands of people from both sides of the sectarian divide had gathered to celebrate without signs of trouble. He is a very devout man and has witnessed many festivals of that kind, albeit all too few when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, but it was clear to me that the experience had moved him.
	In recent days there has been talk of a split between us and our American allies. That is simply not true. I met several of the top US generals in Baghdad, along with Ambassador Khalilzad. Our goals—the UK goals and the US goals—remain the same: to help the Iraqis build the capacity to protect and govern their society. But Baghdad and Basra are different places. There is less violence in Basra and, by and large, the violence is of a different nature, without the poisonous sectarianism that infects Baghdad.
	Operation Sinbad is drawing to a close in Basra. It has had some measurable effects, and public support for the operation is good and reported violence is down markedly. That is not just a glib assessment. I spoke to young soldiers who told me of the measurable difference in the attitude of the people. They are responding to our support and take comfort in knowing that we are prepared to take on the murderous militia, much of which we believe is funded, trained and equipped by Iranian elements.

James Arbuthnot: I agree with all that the Secretary of State has said so far. However, did he not find it alarming that the remarks of the United States ambassador created the impression that there was insufficient communication between the United States and the United Kingdom on whether the UK should gradually withdraw its forces and hand over control to the Iraqis?

Des Browne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. I know that it comes from a substantial knowledge base of what is going on in Iraq. I admit that I was disturbed by the interpretation of the part of the interview with Ambassador Khalilzad that was extensively reported in the UK. I was less concerned when I read the whole interview, and I was entirely reassured when I had the opportunity to spend time with the ambassador and to satisfy myself that he fully understood what we were doing. Indeed, he had been part of a process of discussion over many months about the application of our strategy for Basra. Part of the problem may be that there is sometimes a tendency to abstract parts of sentences or whole sentences from extensive interviews and to over-interpret them. In essence, the problem arose because Ambassador Khalilzad honestly conceded that there was not agreement on the detail of the plan at that point in the discussions. That was interpreted as being disagreement when it was just an indication that discussions were ongoing.
	The right hon. Gentleman will probably already know that very senior officers are embedded deeply into the command of all the coalition forces throughout Iraq. They are greatly valued, not just by our American allies but by the Iraqi Government, and they play a significant role. When I was in Iraq General Lamb, the senior British military representative in Iraq and currently No. 2 to General Casey, was in charge of the coalition forces. He was the commando because General Casey was out of the country. Against that background, the idea that there was no discussion and conversation between us and our allies about our operational plans is fanciful. Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the House by saying that over-interpretation of one part of a very detailed interview may have misled us all for a short time.
	At the start of Operation Sinbad our forces were leading the way, but by the final stages the Iraqi army was out in the lead. That is a sign of progress. It is not a guarantee of success, but it is progress that the people of Basra can see. As well as the improvement in the security situation, thousands of jobs have been created through investment in both short and long-term projects. For example, $12 million has been invested in date palm farming, and Operation Sinbad has created about 25,000 short-term jobs along with the hope of more than 3,000 permanent jobs. More than $30 million has been invested in the improvement of water and electricity supplies. The operation has concentrated on the "last mile", conveying those vital services to people's homes and schools. When, in due course, that work is married up with the long-term investment that the Department for International Development has been responsible for making and overseeing in Basra's water and electricity infrastructure, the benefits will be delivered to homes, schools and other buildings. So things are getting better.

David Kidney: The Staffords—as the Staffordshire Regiment is known—are on their second tour of duty in Basra, and the thoughts of Staffordshire people are with them. We wish them a safe return home. My right hon. Friend has mentioned Operation Sinbad several times. The next major review of our troop levels in Iraq will take place after it has finished. Will my right hon. Friend give us a rough idea of when it will finish and how long the review will take?

Des Browne: When I was in Basra I met the Staffords, and no words are good enough for me to describe my pride in the work that those young people are doing in very difficult circumstances. But—I ask my hon. Friend to convey this to their families and others in his constituency—their morale is high, and they are very proud of the work that they do. They tell me repeatedly, "This is what we are trained to do." They know that they are the best in the world at doing it, and they are right: they should do their work with pride because they are brave and professional. Of course, their families will want to know when those young people will be coming home. Our wish is that they come home safe. I shall say something about the dangers that they are facing, because I think it appropriate for us to be candid about the difficulties that they face as well as the good work that they do. There will be the normal roulement, and of course they will come home.
	My hon. Friend asked me specifically when we will have reviewed and assessed our troop strength following Operation Sinbad. We are involved in the process at the moment. Part of the purpose of my visit at this time was to assess, in the later stages of the operation, its effect and the difference it has made, as far as that is measurable. I do not think my hon. Friend or the House will have very much longer to wait, but I ask Members to be patient. I would rather not give a specific date at this stage, because we are assessing conditions rather than anticipating an event.

Mike Hancock: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the confidence of the Iraqi people in their own defence forces has some longevity, and will remain after United Kingdom forces pull out of Basra? Is he sure that they believe in the integrity and honesty of those forces? Might the only reason that they have confidence in them now be that a substantial number of United Kingdom forces are there to police their activities? Is the Secretary of State concerned about what will happen between the public in Iraq and their armed forces once we leave?

Des Browne: The complexity of the hon. Gentleman's question is betrayed by the time that he took to ask it. It is difficult for me to give a specific answer, but if he will be patient I will say something about the Iraqi security forces and will try to give him an idea of the improvement that I think is taking place. However, the short answer to his question is that it depends on who is asking—as in every environment—and it depends on which forces are being asked about. Some people have confidence in the Iraqi army; some people have confidence in the Iraqi police. One of the problems with trying to test opinion, as we do in that country, is that people tend to be optimistic. When they are asked the simple question, "Are you confident that your own forces can deal with these issues?", a large number will reply that they are, which is partly an expression of desire rather than of real confidence.
	There are still difficulties. Progress is being made, but it is difficult progress in difficult circumstances. We must be honest and candid. There comes a point at which we must transfer responsibility to the troops so that they take it and learn from it when they are in the lead or on their own, as they were in the later stages of Operation Sinbad. As I have said, things are getting better, but they have not yet reached the point at which conditions will be right for transition. Local governance must be strengthened further and the security situation needs a great deal more improvement. While it is encouraging that the Iraqi army has been able to take the lead in Operation Sinbad, we must remember that it is a very new and very raw army that still has much to learn. Our military training teams are doing fantastic work, as I saw with my own eyes. They tell me that there is a problem with absenteeism and discipline, but they also say that every day that they spend training the Iraqi army they see improvement, and every day the army becomes stronger and better trained than the day before. Our troops tell me that they believe that training is one of the most crucial things that they are doing in Iraq, and that it will help the country's future.
	As many Members will know—some have also been to Iraq—we have much to do to improve the Iraqi police, and in particular to reduce corruption.

Jim Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend say something about infiltration of the police forces and the army? Has he any evidence of that?

Des Browne: There is no doubt that there has been infiltration of the police force by militia elements in the south-east of Iraq. That is why an important part of Operation Sinbad, as we moved across the city, was to concentrate on attempting to clear out those elements police station by police station. Only two days ago, I spoke at some length to the head of the police training team, an assistant chief constable by the name of Dick Barton.  [Laughter.] I do not find anything amusing in that. It is the man's name, and he does a sterling job.

Julian Lewis: Is he a special agent?

Des Browne: Mr. Barton certainly has special talents. I have engaged with him on my visits, and I now have significant confidence in his assessment. He made an interesting observation to me about—this will be counter-intuitive to most Members—the value of the involvement of one lawyer in improving the rule of law in Basra. Police officers probably do not do this often, but he was effusive in his compliments for the contribution that that lawyer had made in putting backbone into the judicial and prosecution processes. Perhaps as a result of my professional background, that chimed with my view that building up the justice system and the rule of law is crucial to our ability to make, in particular, the police forces effective.
	I have digressed, but I shall now address the specific question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham). He wanted to know about the level of infiltration. That was high, but the assessment of the very experienced police officer I mentioned was that currently 90 per cent. of the police are good officers who are willing to serve the people of Basra and Iraq, although he also said that 10 per cent. of the police still needed to be dealt with.
	Our police teams have been systematically visiting police stations, helping to bring them up to scratch. There has been significant improvement. It must be said that on Christmas day we disbanded the notorious serious crimes unit in Basra, which was the most corrupt part of the police and was at the heart of the death squads. We demolished the police station as a physical and visible sign to the people of Basra that that unit had gone. There has been significant progress—it has been difficult to achieve, but we are moving in the right direction. However, as I always say, there is still a long way to go.

Tobias Ellwood: I agree that between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of those in the police force and military want a safe and secure Iraq, but is the Secretary of State aware of a Pentagon report that states that about 80 per cent. of the make-up of both the police and the military are former Ba'ath party members? Does he concede that it was a mistake to disband the Ba'ath party in the way that was done after the invasion, not least because that got rid of not only good police officers and soldiers, but 80,000 teachers and 80,000 doctors?

Des Browne: Anyone who knows anything about Iraq knows that the de-Ba'athification process has been retrospectively regretted for its zealousness. There is an ongoing process with the Iraqi Government in respect of how that process can be tempered, or how people who have significant talents—particularly those with deployable skills that are necessary for Iraq in the future—can return to public life. However, we should not underestimate how difficult that is for a substantial number of the people of Iraq. We should thank God every day that we did not have to live through the process that many Shi'a people had to live through. It is difficult in such circumstances to get the balance right, and we should understand that and not be so quick to judge some of the errors that were made. However, the hon. Gentleman is entirely correct that part of the consequence of de-Ba'athification and of how it was carried out was that it took out of public life people who were capable of making a positive contribution. Getting the right balance on that through the process of reconciliation is one of the great challenges that the Iraqi Government face. We need to support them through that, and we are doing so in the best way that we can.
	Hon. Members might be interested to learn that some of the people who have knowledge of our experience over the past 10 or 15 years in Northern Ireland have been going out to Iraq to speak to Iraqi politicians—and in particular to Ministers and Prime Minister Maliki—about the lessons that we have learned from the processes of reconciliation in which we have been involved. The Iraqis have expressed gratitude to me specifically for the information that they gleaned from those meetings.
	I said last year that we would be in a position to draw down a substantial number of troops this year, and I am confident that that remains the case. We are in the process of looking at reposturing our forces in Basra to reflect the shift away from taking the front-line security lead and towards strengthening the Iraqi security forces. An announcement will be made in due course, when we have worked through the detail of the plans. However, I say now that draw-down does not mean that we are leaving Iraq and under no circumstances should be interpreted as such.
	Finally, I wish to comment on the increasing threat to our bases from indirect fire, principally rockets and mortars. I discussed that with commanders in Basra on Tuesday. The increase in indirect fire is a worrying trend. The threat is becoming more sophisticated and dangerous, and the links to Iran and Hezbollah are more evident. Our forces are not standing idly by as the threat develops—they are taking steps to deal with it by targeting the terrorists through intelligence-led operations, and with some success. We are also always looking to strengthen our defensive measures, but Members will understand that for reasons of operational security I am not in a position to say much more than that on the subject, other than to assure the House that we take it very seriously and that we acknowledge the risk our brave men and women face.

Brian Jenkins: On draw-down, will the Secretary of State make it clear that as long as British soldiers are in Iraq we will not take the Tornado squadron out of Kuwait? The last thing we need is to lose air cover.

Des Browne: I do not want what I am about to say to be misinterpreted, but I am not going to give specific and hard assurances on such matters at the Dispatch Box. I will need to take advice as circumstances develop. We are in a coalition and we do not depend for air cover entirely on the Tornadoes, but the Tornadoes provide a very important element of our air cover, and they are in demand not only by our troops but on occasions by others because of the Tornado crews' abilities and skills. I cannot currently envisage a situation arising such as that which my hon. Friend describes—that the Tornados will not be there when our troops are in Iraq. However, circumstances change and we will need to continue to look at the changing circumstances.
	My answer to my hon. Friend's question also depends on what he means when he refers to our troops in Iraq, because in future we might well be in a long-term relationship with the Iraqi Government and in a much more benign environment than is currently the case.

Gerald Howarth: Can I take the Secretary of State back to his point about the seriousness of the attacks on our bases? As he will be aware, there is a system called the Mamba which is able to track incoming mortars and provide an accurate fix on their source. Can he reassure us that sufficient such devices are available to our armed forces in Basra to ensure that we have the maximum protection?

Des Browne: That question deserves an answer, but I am not currently in a position to give the hon. Gentleman a specific answer to it. However, I will write to him and make sure that the House knows the answer. Let me reassure him that this matter is at the top of commanders' priorities—as the hon. Gentleman can imagine, as he knows about these particular circumstances. We are looking in detail at this matter to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to protect our forces. I should add that, clearly, the best thing that we can do to protect our forces is to deal with the threat where it arises, rather than with the consequences of it. However, I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the specific point he raises.
	Can I mention an issue that I might need to find a way of dealing with? I am keen for Members to get specific answers to the questions they ask when they are legitimate questions to ask, but we must also be careful that we do not put into the public domain information that the enemy can take advantage of. Drawing a line between my inclination to be candid and straightforward and putting information into the public domain that jeopardises operational security has to be considered. We might need to find a way of properly dealing with this issue.

Nick Harvey: The Prime Minister has said several times that we all want to get the troops out of Iraq as soon as we can but that that can take place only after we have handed over responsibility for security to the Iraqis. Do the Government still anticipate that the remaining provinces will be handed over this spring, and can the Secretary of State give, in broad terms, an indication of what British troops will continue to do in Iraq after that has happened?

Des Browne: The process of handing over, or provincial Iraqi control as it is known—or PIC as it is known to those who love to use only the first letters of words, as the military do—is a condition-based process. We are only one of several parties who are involved in making the decision on that. Part of that process is that the Iraqi Government must not only have a willingness to take over control, but be in a position to do so.
	The point about our troops in Multi-National Division (South-East) is that we are making progress along the strategic path that we have set and we are not deviating from it, which means that in the near future, we will be in a position to re-posture our troops. Exactly how we do that will depend on the commanders' advice on the ground as to what the specific operational plan should be. That will then affect the number of troops that we need, because protecting static bases is more expensive in terms of troops and manpower than collecting people together. However, there is of course a consideration as to whether collecting people together in that environment makes them more vulnerable, and as to how we can protect them there. All those matters have to be decided by operational commanders.
	The intention is to get to the point where we can hand over control not just to the Iraqi security forces, but to their local government and politicians, so that they can run that part of the country independently of us and we can adopt a posture of over-watch. We will do, for example, what the Australians do in Dhi Qar and al-Muthanna, the two provinces that have been handed over: stand by, ready to go to the assistance of the local security forces, if necessary. Interestingly, in both those provinces the political situation and the security situation have remained stable. Although there have been incidents, on both occasions it was possible for local politicians and security forces to deal with them. They did so in a perhaps more Iraqi way than we would have, but through a mixture of exactly the same factors as we would use in dealing with disturbances on the streets in any of our communities. In other words, the local political leadership and the security forces— the police, or others—deal with them and try to calm the situation. That is the position that we are trying to reach. I hope that that has been of assistance to the hon. Gentleman. Some people become obsessed with the specifics of the assessment, but in our view we remain on course. However, we have to make sure that the conditions are right and that everybody is able to move at the same pace with us along this route.
	In Afghanistan, the challenges are different and the environment is different, but many of the basic principles are the same. We cannot succeed by military force alone, but at the same time, progress is impossible without basic stability and security. As a result of our efforts, basic security is improving but it is still under threat. In one of the world's poorest countries, where development is desperately required, the Taliban stand in the way, callously indifferent to the interests of the local people.

Mark Lancaster: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very generous. He is absolutely right to say that progress has been made in Afghanistan in recent months. Part of that progress is down to the strong leadership offered by international security assistance force IX, the headquarters, led by General Richards, which is changing over. Is the Secretary of State aware, however, of the genuine concern that, as we move to ISAF X, there is a complete lack of capacity and that many of the systems being put in place will be lost? Can he confirm that a trawl is being made of British staff officers who are likely to deploy in April to bolster ISAF X?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman, who served in Afghanistan and made a contribution to the improvement there, obviously knows what he is talking about. He will have noticed that I made a written statement today about the normal roulement of the forces in Afghanistan, and he will see from it that we intend to make a contribution to the replacement for the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, which will be led by General McNeil. So the hon. Gentleman is correct in suggesting that we will make a contribution, and we will of course look for officers with the talent to do so. As he knows, providing such leadership is one of the great contributions that we can make. It is very highly valued and sought after by our NATO allies—and, indeed, beyond that, across the world. Everywhere I go, Ministers of Defence ask me whether their officers can train with ours in our officer training system in the United Kingdom. We should be proud that we are able to do that. That we can give our senior officers the opportunity to show their expertise and to make that contribution internationally is an enormous positive. I see no reluctance to go among those who are candidates for such jobs; indeed, some who have done so ask me whether they can stay longer than was planned.
	It is precisely because of Afghanistan's clear and overwhelming humanitarian need that the international community is united in its support. That unity, embodied by NATO's military presence, has delivered real change in the last five years, and I make no apology for restating that. Not only is that point often lost in the urgency of immediate events; it is also the clearest demonstration of the role of defence in the world that I could hope to give.
	In the past five years, the terrorist training camps have gone and in their place is a democratically elected Government. Of course, we can find criticisms of that Government, but we should be honest with ourselves about where they have come from and the circumstances of that country; we sometimes set an unrealistic standard against which to examine them. Education is spreading. Some 6 million children are in school, and more than 13,000 primary and secondary schools have been reconstructed. School enrolment has quadrupled. The schools are full of girls, and women are able to teach once again. New health clinics are opening and vaccination programmes are saving lives. Most importantly, according to the UN, nearly 5 million refugees have returned home, believing that their country has a future.
	That future now hinges of the fate of the south and east. It is here that the struggle with the Taliban is being played out, and where the needs of the Afghan people are most acute. If we can support the Government in extending their influence into these previously lawless areas, build the capacity of the Afghan security forces and deliver demonstrable progress to the local people, the Taliban's complete lack of any positive alternative vision for the future will be exposed. Only then will they finally and completely be rejected.

Robert Walter: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Des Browne: I will, but after that it is probably time that I exercised a little discipline regarding giving way; otherwise, I shall start biting into the time available for Back Benchers.

Robert Walter: The Secretary of State has outlined the achievements and we commend them, but the poppy crop has not decreased; in fact, it has increased. The United States announced last week that it is committing another $10 billion to military and development support in Afghanistan. The Secretary of State for International Development has estimated the poppy crop to be worth some $600 million. Could we perhaps be a bit cleverer and seek to withdraw the poppies from the market by spending on this issue just a small proportion of what we are prepared to commit militarily?

Des Browne: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is saying in an indirect way that we should buy the crop.

Robert Walter: indicated assent.

Des Browne: I have read about recommendations of this nature from a number of sources, including from people who have extensive experience in dealing with these issues. If I thought that that was a solution to the problem and was persuaded by the argument, I would readily agree. It seems such a simple thing to do, but the flaw in that proposal is that we could never be assured, in a country that lacks basic administration, that we were not simply encouraging the doubling of the crop. Until we can get an administration in place that can assure us that we are not, by putting more money into poppies, simply saying to the farmers, "You can grow some for us, but you can continue to grow them for the dealers, as well, and make twice as much money," I would not be prepared to spend money in that way.
	We have to recognise that dealing with narcotics in such an environment requires us to put in place the basic parts of the rest of our drugs plan. We need to improve the ability to administer these regions. We need a justice system—an issue that I was talking about earlier, but in a different context—that works. We need police forces, particularly anti-narcotics forces, who can arrest people—the key middle-ground people—in the confidence that those people will go into the justice system and stay in it. Once a basic administration is established and the pressure on, and intimidation of, the peasant farmer is relieved, it will then be possible to adopt some of the more sophisticated approaches. However, until then, we need to concentrate on building up the basic parts of the infrastructure that are needed. Having said that, this is a very serious problem. The crop that is currently planted in Helmand and in the south of the country was planted and in the ground before we got there.

Julian Lewis: One does not have to disagree with the Secretary of State's response—that it is not only a simple solution that is required—in order to state nevertheless that there is no excuse for pursuing the strategy, to which the US State Department seems wedded, of actively destroying, suppressing and even spraying the crops from the air, at a time when the basic principle of counter-insurgency means that we should be doing everything that we can to divide the insurgents from as much of the population as possible, not creating a natural alliance between the insurgents and the one eighth of the population who depend on the crop.

Des Browne: I know that many hon. Members—and the hon. Gentleman is one of them—know and understand the component elements of this issue well, and they know the detrimental effect that precipitate anti-narcotics action could have on a broader anti-insurgency strategy. We should not underestimate the intelligence of the US, which also knows and understands those points. There is no expectation that aerial spraying of the crop will take place. Indeed, all the analysis of the risk associated with various methods has been done, and in the end the people who will make the decisions on how to proceed are the Government of Afghanistan.
	I know of no plans for aerial eradication. Indeed, I know of no plans for ground spraying in Helmand province either. However, that does not alter the fact that with the support of the governor, using the structures that we have in place and recognising that we need to find an alternative livelihood for the people whose crops we destroy, we need to begin to address the issue of narcotics. We need to send the message that a narcotics-based economy is not the future for Afghanistan. It is a delicate balance, but we take into account all the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Tobias Ellwood: The Secretary of State will be aware that I take an interest in this issue and have pressed for action along the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) mentioned. The Secretary of State will also be aware that a third of the world's opium production comes from Helmand province, the very area in which we are trying to work. He will also know that the UK has G8 responsibility for the counter-narcotics strategy and he may be aware that the Afghan Parliament has passed a statute that allows the licensed production of poppy crops. I have evidence from a parliamentary written answer that we have a shortage of diamorphine in this country. It is not rocket science to work out that Afghanistan, which is the fourth poorest country in the world and is unable to get off its knees—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are getting longer and longer, and there is a time limit on Back Benchers' speeches in this debate.

Des Browne: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try to exercise some discipline, too, by not taking interventions.
	All the points that the hon. Gentleman makes are factually correct and I accept them. I do not dismiss his suggestion out of hand, but given our inability at the moment to ensure a level of administration in Helmand province that would prevent the farmers from simply doubling the crop, the balance of the argument comes down in my favour. But that does not mean that in the future, when we are in a position to do so, we will not look at some of those suggestions.
	The most important thing that we can do is prevent opium production becoming the economy of the country, whoever is buying it. We have to get the pariahs off the backs of the peasant farmers. By the pariahs I mean those who demand that the farmers grow the crop and use extreme violence against them if they are not prepared to do so. We need a system of justice that prevents such people from behaving in that way with impunity in those communities. Diverting our attention to another issue when we should be using our resources to achieve that is, arguably, the wrong thing to do, but we can continue to have the debate and there are valid arguments on both sides.
	It is only by securing the south and east against the Taliban that we will safeguard the wider progress already made in Kabul, the north and the west. It is for that reason that we took on this difficult task alongside the Americans, the Canadians, Dutch, Danes, Romanians, Australians and Estonians. We knew that it would be tough and so it proved to be. But we also knew we had the robust, professional armed forces that could deliver in that environment. Over the summer they faced down the Taliban, beating them in every tactical engagement. They released the Taliban stranglehold on many parts of Helmand province and allowed us to begin the vital tasks of reconstruction and building local capacity. Over the winter they have continued to keep the Taliban on the back foot.
	The work done in Kajaki exemplifies that. The Royal Marines have been taking on Taliban forces around the Kajaki dam, which has the potential to deliver power to much of Helmand's population. They have challenged the Taliban's control of the surrounding area and have cleared the cave complexes they previously used as a base. In doing so, they have started to open the way for reconstruction work to take place to renovate the dam. That will be a long-term task, but it serves to illustrate the connection between security and development. I urge hon. Members to bear in mind examples like that, and many others, when they are tempted to question whether our mission is really one of reconstruction.
	There is, however, a long way to go in Afghanistan, and particularly in the south. The Taliban have been knocked back but they are not finished. Even now the Royal Marines are keeping them under constant pressure, keeping them off balance, to protect the reconstruction taking place in Lashkar Gah and elsewhere. Hon. Members will, I am sure, have seen and read the stories of their bravery in recent weeks.
	The task is not ours alone, but one that belongs to NATO and to the international community as a whole. In Seville next week, I will continue to press this point on our alliance partners. I will emphasise that the UK is playing its part, as NATO's second largest contributor in Afghanistan after the US. Earlier today, I issued a statement confirming our continued commitment, with the roulement of forces in April and the extension until 2009 of key capabilities such as Harrier, Apache and the Royal Engineers. As ever, we will keep our forces under review, but the next step is to push NATO as a whole to review its force levels and force generation, which I will be doing in Seville. I will keep the House informed of progress and any implications for the UK's own force structures.
	Afghanistan has illustrated in the boldest terms the need for flexible, expeditionary armed forces. We have one of the few forces in the world that has a balance of sheer military capability, immense operational experience, and flexibility across a range of roles. Even so, no one tells me more regularly than military commanders that success in many of the operations that we undertake cannot be delivered by force of arms alone. There is absolute recognition of the need for a comprehensive approach, one that combines all levers of power—economic, developmental, diplomatic and military. In Afghanistan, we have honed that approach, starting with our first provincial reconstruction team in Mazar e Sharif in 2003, and now embodied in the strong cross-Government team working in Helmand.
	We must continue to strive to do more, and to strengthen our ability to work as a team in difficult, insecure environments. The armed forces can tackle some non-military tasks. Engineers can help with reconstruction and the military's organisational flair has wide utility in times of crisis, as we have seen in a wide variety of situations, from humanitarian relief in the Pakistan earthquake to dealing with foot and mouth disease back in the UK. But we also need to develop the ability to deploy specialist skills that the military cannot provide, such that they can be there, on the first day of a new operation, making a difference.
	We must also get better at finding local solutions to the problems we face, which reflect the culture and mores of the societies we are trying to help. Our aims are driven by principle, but our implementation must become far more practical, in building local politics free from corruption, and especially in the sphere of law and order. A working supreme court is an admirable thing, but it may take 10 years to deliver. A working local court is essential and may take only months to set up. Ask an ordinary Afghan or Iraqi which gives him the greatest sense of progress and he will say the local court every time. Our problem is that many of us in the west charged with development often seem to start from the opposite end.
	I have dwelt on Iraq, Afghanistan and NATO for much of this speech. I believe that they represent most clearly what our armed forces can and should be doing to promote peace and stability. I had intended to turn briefly to our other activities, but given the time I suspect that it might be better if I left that for my right hon. Friend the Minister when he responds to the debate, in which those issues will almost certainly be raised.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, and I realise that he has a problem with time, but will he be able to say something about his Department's plans to replace the Trident nuclear submarine system and the associated costs? When will a decision be taken?

Des Browne: The White Paper published some months ago contained most of what I want to say about Trident, and I have also answered parliamentary questions and spoken extensively outside the House on the matter. My hon. Friend knows that the Government recommend that we should invest in new platforms and boats for the Trident system, so that future generations can benefit as we have from that deterrent. The world is a very uncertain place, but the indications are that the future threat could be similar, if not identical, to the one that we face. I know that he disagrees: I know why he adopts his position, and I honour it, but I believe that the balance of the argument lies with those who wish to make the investment that I have described.
	As to when the decision will have to be made, I can tell my hon. Friend that the Select Committee has been looking at that question with some intensity. We should wait for its report before we have a debate on the matter in the House, but I anticipate that that debate—when hon. Members will have an opportunity to make a decision—will take place some time in March.
	We ask a lot of our armed forces. They work in the harshest environments, in a huge variety of roles and situations. When called upon to do so, they fight like no one else, but they also do much more. They uphold Governments and help to build nations. They are a genuine force for good in the world and are admired as such internationally.
	The work that our armed forces do is not about forcing western values or structures on others. It is about helping people build their own societies, drawing on their own traditions. Security, stability, and the rule of law are not western values: they are universal, and our armed forces promote and exemplify them.
	We are proud of the work that our armed forces do, and the manner in which they do it. They are a credit to our nation.

Liam Fox: I begin by associating myself with everything that the Secretary of State said about the bravery of our troops, and the commitment of the civilian staff and others who maintain their efforts worldwide.
	We are all aware of the courage and professionalism of our armed forces as they face the trauma of combat in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, but we should not forget the role played by service families. They too show great courage and commitment, and they bear much of the problem associated with separation or injury. Sometimes, we in this country should remember the maxim that an injured serviceman is an injured family. Our society should be more aware of the sacrifices that our armed forces make, and the problems that they face.
	Those of us in this country who enjoy the protection provided by our armed forces have a duty to support them. The news that emerged overnight shows that some people in our society are prepared to kidnap and kill forces personnel. Whatever their background, that is vile and repugnant. The mediaeval savagery that we have seen in recent times in the middle east has no place in this country, and I am sure that the whole House will want to congratulate our security services on stopping what appears to have been a disgusting and dastardly plot.
	We welcome this debate, and hope that a wide range of issues will be discussed—for example, how we have arrived at our current positions and force sizes, the threats that we face in Afghanistan and Iraq, the threats posed by Iran and the potential threat posed by Russia, the need to maintain our alliances, and the need to deal with changing global realities.
	First, how did we get to the position in which we find ourselves today? Over the Christmas holiday, I spent some time looking at the defence reviews held since the second world war—just the sort of sad thing that our jobs sometimes require us to do. They included the reviews conducted by Sandys, Healey, Mason and Nott, as well as "Options for Change", "Frontline First" and this Government's strategic defence review. I was struck by the fact that most of them lacked a foreign-policy baseline. With two exceptions—"Options for Change" and the SDR—the stamp of the Treasury was clearly evident.
	In "Options for Change", there was a genuine attempt to look at the new strategic reality following the end of the cold war. Moreover, I would commend the SDR undertaken by the current Government's SDR perhaps above all the others: it was an extremely good review and came to very sensible conclusions about the sort of threats that the UK was likely to face.
	I returned from Washington this morning—and I apologise in advance for any lapses of concentration this afternoon—and it was interesting to hear there the growing view that all western powers were too keen to seek a peace a dividend at the end of the cold war. They did so too quickly, and did not pause to think about the possible threats that could arise from the fragmentation of the Soviet Union.
	In medicine, we used to say that the most useful instrument would be a retrospectoscope, and we would do well to take something of a reality check so that we can work out why this country and the US face some of our current problems—and I remind the House that the US Government have just announced a substantial increase of 95,000 in their armed forces, precisely to deal with some of those problems.
	The SDR was reasonable in its expectation that the UK should be able to carry out one medium-sized and one small operation simultaneously, plus an occasional additional small operation, but the defence planning assumptions that flowed from that have been exceeded in each of the past four years. We cannot maintain that approach for any length of time: it leads inevitably to overstretch, and to problems such as restrictions on leave and training and increased separation from families. The one sure way to create retention problems is by making servicemen and women unhappy, and the way to do that is by making their families unhappy. I am afraid that that is what is happening at the moment.
	Service families already face problems with education, housing and health care, so it does not take much to make a life in the services seem much less attractive than what is available outside. As has been noted in the House before, we need to examine those difficulties, taking account of the demographic and labour market statistics, because the trend of the last couple of years—with substantially more people leaving the armed forces than joining them—cannot be allowed to continue. Even if we are able to replace the personnel who leave, the problem of skills dilution will remain, and that cannot be in our armed forces' long-term interests.
	It is important to understand where we are in respect of our armed forces but, when we review expenditure, we must understand the realities of the increased tempo of their activities, and the effect that that has on them.
	The Secretary of State spoke about Afghanistan and Iraq, and I shall turn to those subjects now. His announcement of the roulement in Afghanistan contains a shift in the pattern of our troops' deployment, with the focus moving from Kabul to Helmand. Only 100 extra British troops are going to Afghanistan, but there will be 600 more in Helmand, because the number in Kabul is to be reduced.
	We support our troops, and therefore we support the mission. Although people who say that they support our troops in the abstract but do not support the mission may find that their approach goes down well in the House of Commons, it certainly does not go down well with our troops or their commanders. However, serious questions need to be raised in this House about why the British armed forces must shoulder yet more of the burden in the south of Afghanistan.
	It cannot be acceptable that British taxpayers are funding a greater proportion of the cost of those operations, or that the British military should have to shoulder more of the burden in the most dangerous part of Afghanistan. Where are our NATO allies? They spend substantially less on defence than this country. We spend 2.5 per cent. of gross domestic product on defence: we can argue about whether that is too much or too little, but it is substantially more than many of our NATO allies. For example, Germany spends only 1.4 per cent. of GDP, while Spain spends 1.2 per cent., and the Netherlands around 1.4 per cent.
	That is simply not acceptable in the long term. I know that the Secretary of State is forced by convention to be diplomatic about such matters, but I certainly am not. It is absolutely outrageous that, when we have the concept of shared security, we do not have properly shared risk. It is not acceptable for countries to reduce their defence expenditure and still expect us to give them the umbrella of NATO protection. It is not acceptable for them to operate according to caveats that mean that they serve in the safest parts of Afghanistan only or according to rules of engagement that are so restrictive that they can barely cross a road without phoning their national capitals. It cannot be in the long-term interests of NATO for that pattern to be repeated. If we want shared security, we have shared risk and shared burden-carrying.

John Smith: I am not unsympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he not recognise the contribution made by some of our allies in the same region? I am thinking in particular of the Canadians who have taken larger losses proportionately than we have.

Liam Fox: I promise the House that this is not a contrived double act; that is the very point I am coming to.
	Some of our allies are making exemplary contributions, for example the United States and the Canadians who are the unsung heroes in Kandahar, who have done so much with so little recognition. The Canadian Government have done a remarkable job in keeping Canadian public opinion on side and they deserve widespread international recognition for that. Another example that I would cite is Poland, which is increasing its expenditure to match the risk that it sees in both its immediate environment and more widely. If more countries followed that example, recognising that they have to match their rhetoric with expenditure, NATO would be in better shape.

Mark Field: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's remarks on finance, although I suspect that the imprint of the Treasury applies in France and Germany as it does in this country. I believe that our defence budget of 2.5 per cent. of public expenditure is too low. How would my hon. Friend ensure—we have to negotiate to ensure it, particularly given the historical perspective and the fact that the current arrangement has applied for some 50 years—that France and Germany in particular pay their way in NATO?

Liam Fox: I will come on to what should happen in NATO in due course. We need to consider not just expenditure, but how we make decisions in NATO and the role of NATO. All those matters need to be properly discussed and I will come to that later.

Mark Lancaster: May I make a constructive suggestion from the sharp end? One of the biggest problems with NATO is that the procurement cycle works so slowly that in their haste individual nations end up spending money themselves rather than waiting for NATO to catch up. At Kandahar airport, for example, we have no fewer that four different points of departure to get on aeroplanes from individual nations because we have been waiting so long to get a NATO asset in place.

Liam Fox: I am always ready to bow to the voice of experience. To augment what my hon. Friend said, in my time in this job I have been amazed at the ability of defence departments worldwide to duplicate what is happening elsewhere and to spend vast sums reinventing the wheel. Better co-ordination in deployment and procurement would not go amiss. That needs to be considered under the wider NATO question.

James Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend's point about our eagerness to take from the cold war dividend is not a political point because the dividend was taken by a Conservative Treasury, strongly egged on by a Labour Opposition. When he was in Washington, did he discover that the Americans have as low a view of our defence spending as of the NATO allies whom my hon. Friend has been, rightly, castigating?

Liam Fox: No, I did not, nor did I give any time in conversations for such a criticism to come up. I heard a non-stop welcoming of the UK commitment to the relationship with the US and of their deep debt of gratitude to us for standing alongside them even when the political going got tough. Although it is true that the US would like to see expenditure rise across all their NATO allies, the UK comes in for the least criticism and rightly so.
	The Secretary of State talked about the roulement and the 600 extra troops in the south of Afghanistan. That begs some questions which I hope the Minister of State can answer. If more British troops are to be deployed in the south—the most dangerous area where we are most likely to see casualties—what extra equipment will we get for them? Will we get more helicopters and armoured vehicles to give them support and protection? If the Government are saying that there will be more troops but the same level of equipment, many people will think that we are carrying not a fair share of the defence burden, but too much and asking too much of our troops with too little given in return.
	When the Minister of State replies can he tell us about the medical facilities envisaged for the increased number of troops in the south? Along with many colleagues and Labour Members, I have been in the field hospital at Al Shaibah in Basra where the level of medical care is exceptionally good. That is partly because they have a CT scanner available at all times. Are there plans to have such equipment put in place in southern Afghanistan? Without it there is a big gap in the ability to diagnose and treat. Is it true that we still have no neurological services based in Afghanistan, notwithstanding the risk that our troops are facing there? It cannot be acceptable that the nearest place to treat neuro-trauma would be hospitals in Pakistan. If we are going to put our troops at increased risk and send increased numbers of troops into battle zones, the least we can do is ensure that we provide the level of medical care that they may require, should they be injured.
	The Secretary of State dealt extensively with Iraq. Again, I discussed this subject widely in Washington. All hon. Members would like to believe that the troop surge that President Bush is trying to achieve will be successful and bring greater stability to the area in and around Baghdad. Many of us will be sceptical about whether or not it will be successful, but we hope that it will. It is essential to recognise one of the basic weaknesses of our position in Iraq. This takes me back to an example that I may have cited in the House before: a commander in Basra who said to me, "Forget the briefing you have had up to now. If you want to understand the situation in which we find ourselves, just imagine 1920s Chicago in the desert. We have gangsters, racketeering and militias. The big problem is not the level of democracy in Baghdad, but the lack of non-corrupt policing and a functioning judicial system." We still fail to grasp that institution building is essential for any chance of democracy taking hold in the longer term.
	On frequent occasions the point has been made in the House that Britain is a liberal democracy, but we were liberal long before we were democratic. There were 150 years between Adam Smith and universal suffrage; and 100 years between abolishing slavery and women getting the vote. It was our liberal institutions that allowed our democracy to be stable. They underpinned and gave structure to our democracy. If democracy were simply the exercise of electoral mechanics, Gaza would be the beacon state in the middle east. I hasten to suggest that it is not.
	We need to understand the need for realistic time scales for the noble aspirations that we have in trying to bring some of these countries up to the level of expectations in terms of the market economy, human rights and judicial freedoms that we take for granted. We need to be frank with the British people about the potential future of Iraq. By providing troops and training and by trying to build institutions we can buy the Government of Iraq some time. We can buy them time to provide stability for the growth and strengthening of their governmental structures, but we cannot guarantee them success. Ultimately, they have to find a political solution whereby both the Sunni and Shi'a populations recognise that they must have mutual co-existence or face mutual destruction.
	There is a limit to what we can achieve, even with the best will in the world and whatever commitments we are willing to make in terms of manpower, military resources or financial assistance. A reasonable recognition of our limitations in the real world alongside realistic expectations about the time scale would go a long way towards reassuring the public that we are not trying to bite off more than we can chew.

Mark Field: Will my hon. Friend elaborate on his point about realistic time scales? All too often, there is a risk that the time scales for our military involvement, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, are driven by political expediency. What education should we be giving the public at large about precisely what we have to do in the years ahead?

Liam Fox: I was thinking more in the generality. We should be saying that we will not be able to fix a broken country such as Afghanistan in five years. It could take 10, 15 or even 20 years to achieve what we want. People believed that things in Iraq would get better much more quickly than it was realistic to expect. The consequence has been disappointment domestically and resentment abroad. We need to be more realistic about long-term time scales.
	I entirely agree with the Government that to put a timetable on the reduction of our forces is asking for trouble, and would give insurgents the green light to try to disrupt it. We need to try to make judgments on the ground, in light of the prevailing circumstances, but that is a matter for our commanders. The House of Commons cannot set an artificial timetable, because that would fail to take account of what is happening in the real world. I would very much oppose any attempt by politicians to set an artificial timetable that did not take into account the reality encountered by those at the sharp end.
	I want to say something about Iran, and were it not for the time constraints of the debate, I am sure that the Secretary of State intended to do the same. The House and the country need to understand and confront a number of issues that relate to Iran. The bottom line is that it is not acceptable to the UK, in either the specific or the generic case, for Iran to become a nuclear weapons state.
	In the specific case, it is not acceptable because of the nature of the Iranian regime, especially its president. Furthermore, some of the rhetoric of the current Iranian president and his association with a particularly aggressive fundamentalist type of religious interpretation of Islam makes it extremely unacceptable in the region that Iran should become a nuclear power. Iranian rhetoric and the country's involvement in Iraq—to which the Secretary of State alluded—and potentially further afield means that there is a danger of middle east conflict shifting from the historically rooted Palestinian-Israeli conflict to a wider one between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims throughout the region. That would be a dangerous escalation of tension in the region.
	The more generic case against Iran becoming a nuclear weapons state is that such acquisition of nuclear weapons would be the end of non-proliferation as we understand it. If Iran has nuclear weapons, other states in the region will want them, too. If we fail to control Iran's aspirations in that direction we are likely to live in a far more dangerous world than we do now—although when looking at that region, that is sometimes hard to believe. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said yesterday, it is incumbent on all western powers to put up a united front to the Iranian regime and to demonstrate that it cannot hope to have a divide-and-rule policy, and to tighten our financial sanctions to make it clear that we are serious about stopping its aspirations.
	However, even during the most difficult times of the cold war, we in the west kept a substantial diplomatic presence in Moscow. Even when the Soviets were pointing new and larger numbers of nuclear warheads at us, we continued our process of diplomatic engagement. It is not sensible to say that just because we do not like a regime we will not talk to it at all. Taking the perspective of international opinion, it does not help the west's case if we are seen as intransigent in dealing with Iran. Of course, we may not get anywhere with the current regime—I would be extraordinarily naïve to suggest that we might—but when we dealt with the Soviets we were always trying to find the next Solzhenitsyn, and the reasonable voices from the next generation.
	We must make it clear that our current problems are with the regime in Iran not with the nation of Iran. Our conflict and quarrels are not with the people of Iran, so diplomatic engagement—the carrot and the stick—is the sensible way to proceed and would have widespread support in the region. It will not be easy and there will be obstacles to overcome, but if we are to be involved in a complex regional situation, and more generally, we must fully understand the concept of soft power—as the Secretary of State said—as well as hard power.

Michael Meacher: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the nature of the Iranian regime, in particular about its oppression of human rights and its rejection of what we would regard as normal democratic politics. However, I think his position is that the UK's possession of nuclear weapons is indispensable for its security, so what is his answer for Iran, which is surrounded to the north, west and east by nuclear powers—by America in the Arabian sea and the eastern Mediterranean and by Israel, China, India, Pakistan and now North Korea? On what basis can he say that, in terms of Iranian security, the country is not entitled to have nuclear weapons?

Liam Fox: The situation may not be as simple as the right hon. Gentleman portrays it when we consider what President Ahmadinejad has said—his open declaration that he wants to
	"wipe Israel off the map".
	That attitude is not prevalent in any other nuclear weapons state. The right hon. Gentleman may correct me, but I know of no such state that has openly said it wants to use its nuclear arsenal in an aggressive way. The Iranian regime wants to do that. In the UK we are discussing the next generation of our nuclear deterrent, but with fewer warheads than we have at present. We are within the letter and the spirit of the non-proliferation treaty.
	Iran, too, has obligations under the treaty. We cannot accept one country breaking out of the treaty—especially when it has a regime such as the current one in Iran—and do nothing about it. Iran is threatening not only to possess nuclear weapons, but, for the first time, designating the target for them. That is an extraordinarily disturbing development.

Jim Cunningham: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that he had just returned from Washington. What does he make of the build-up of American naval forces surrounding Iran? What is its purpose?

Liam Fox: We need to look at the other half of the equation: the build-up of Iranian naval forces. In the view of many western intelligence analysts, that is taking place to internationalise any dispute that may arise after the tightening of sanctions as a result of Iran's nuclear ambitions, and to disrupt maritime transport through the Strait of Hormuz. It would be strange if we did not make it clear by positioning forces that we would respond to such a threat. When dealing with the current Iranian regime, it is essential that we make it clear that nothing will be ruled out in our responses to any actions that Iran may take.
	I hope that the regime will see sense. I hope that political opinion in Iran will persuade the regime that the Iranian people do not want a conflict with the international community, and that its actions are to the detriment of the ordinary people of that country. I hope that a political way through can be found, but we should give the Iranian regime no comfort by ruling out any specific responses to any military action that they may take, or threaten to take.
	The Secretary of State mentioned the role of Iranians in Iraq. It is sufficient to say that increased Iranian involvement in the Iraqi conflict will be to the detriment of all parties concerned, and would severely damage the chances of a peaceful resolution in Iraq. It would be likely to inflame tensions, way beyond the borders of either Iran or Iraq, and the Iranians are already raising considerable fears in the wider region.
	It may or may not turn out to be correct, but increasingly, noises are coming from Iran suggesting that Iran may want to change its position not only on the conflict in Iraq but on the conflict in Afghanistan. Until now, the Government in Tehran have never thought it to Iran's advantage to become too involved in what is happening in Afghanistan. For historical and religious reasons they are no friend of the Taliban, and they have not wanted a sustained NATO presence on their border. However, there are those in Iran who now say, "Well, the greatest threat to us is a potential military strike as a result of our nuclear programme, so it would be all the better for us to tie up the NATO forces, and the Americans in particular, in a prolonged and more difficult conflict in Afghanistan."
	That may or may not be what the regime is thinking, but it is worth stating that view, because if Iran were brought into conflict with the entire international community—and it would be the entire international community, because we are talking about a United Nations-sanctioned mission, carried out by NATO—there would be a tremendous escalation of tension in the region. If people in Tehran, and Iran's representatives in this country, are listening to today's debate, I hope that they understand the strength of feeling in this country about any meddling by Iran in Afghanistan, especially as we heard only today that there are to be more British troops in part of Afghanistan.

Peter Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is, and has been for a long time, a strong trend in American Government circles to support a military strike against Iran. Rather than parroting the allegations emanating from Washington, will he tell me which of its neighbours Iran has attacked?

Liam Fox: One need not look far beyond the borders of Iraq to see substantial Iranian influence, and to see Iran using as a proxy those who seek to do damage to the coalition troops. If the hon. Gentleman considers Iran's influence on Hezbollah, he will see just how much Iran was influencing events in Lebanon. Anyone who is naive enough to believe that Iran is a peace-loving country, and that the regime does not pose a threat to the region, is not looking at the same information as the rest of us. Disruption in Lebanon, and in Palestine via Hamas, control of Hezbollah, and insurrection in Iraq are all testaments to a regime that is certainly not to be trusted.
	I turn to an issue not often debated in the House: the substantial rearmament programme taking place in Russia. There has been such a focus on the middle east in recent times that very little has been said in the House or in our media about the growing and accelerating rearmament in Russia. The Russian national armament programme for 2007-15 will cost about $183 billion. Let me give the House a flavour of what the Russians intend to do with much of the money—and, it has to be said, with the many petrol dollars that we contribute to them. At the tactical level, they want 1,400 tanks, 4,100 infantry fighting vehicles, 3,000 armoured personnel carriers, 1,000 combat aircraft and helicopters, and 60 theatre quasi-ballistic missile systems. At the strategic level, they want 69 Topol-M missiles with between 70 and 200 nuclear warheads, five nuclear ballistic missile submarines and 60 Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles, with an increased number of warheads—that is, between 400 and 600.
	I mention that because the subject of what we are doing in terms of our nuclear deterrent has been raised in the House. We are set to introduce our next generation deterrent, which will have fewer warheads than at present, but the Russians are already investing heavily in more warheads. Not only that, but they have been careful to ensure that funds remain available, so that they can keep that expenditure going. As their oil and gas exports have increased, and because of the rise in the price of oil—every $1 rise in the price of a barrel of oil provides another $1 billion for the Russian exchequer—they have, through their stabilisation fund, built up large reserves that enable them to keep spending on defence, right through until 2015. As of 1 September 2006, they had in their central bank's gold reserves almost $65 billion, and in their currency reserves they had $259 billion. While we are discussing our overstretch and what we can afford to spend on defence, Russia has been extraordinarily clever in ensuring that it will continue to improve and expand its capability, all at a time when the eyes of the west have been elsewhere.
	I mention that because it goes hand in hand with an increasing resource nationalism in Russia, and its increasing willingness to use natural resources, fossil fuels in particular, to achieve political ends. We saw the warning signs in the Baltic states, in Ukraine, in Georgia, and in Belarus. We now need to be aware of the potential threats posed by the Russian Government. Of course their forces were degraded, and of course until 2003 they were experiencing a vast reduction in their capabilities, especially their army and naval capabilities, but they are now building them up. I simply say in this debate about defence in the world that that is something that our country needs to keep an eye on. When we plan for our expenditure in future, we need to take into account the fact that a new and growing risk is posed in an area in which many of us had hoped there was a declining risk, following the end of the cold war.
	I shall mention one other subject before I end: the need for alliances. I have for some time held the view that politicians love the upside of globalisation. They love the prosperity and the trade, and they like the potential security. What politicians do not really like, and do not like to talk about, is the downside of globalisation: the shared risk—the increased risk exposure to asymmetric threat, for example. If we live in an interdependent and sensitive global economy, we cannot be isolated from the risks of events in any other part of that global economy. Some of my American colleagues are barely capable of giving a speech without saying, "America will be energy-independent," but that is a fat lot of use if al-Qaeda take down a supertanker in the Malacca strait, creating not only an environmental disaster but a potential crisis in confidence for the Japanese or Chinese economy, and a shock to the oil price.
	In future, we will all live in a much more interdependent world, but we are trying to deal with a properly globalised economy with political structures that were designed for the end of the second world war, and with military structures that were largely designed for the cold war. We require leadership that brings those international structures up to date, so that we can find ways of co-operating to deal with shared risk. That is why the Riga summit was such a disappointment and such a failure. At that summit, we needed to get a redefinition of NATO's role, looking well ahead into the years to come. We needed to talk about the decision-making processes that NATO might have, to talk about the funding and the mechanisms, and how we would get countries to make the appropriate commitments to funding for NATO. EU-NATO relations are at an all-time low, and that needed to be addressed at the same time.
	The NATO alliance should continue to be the primary military structure for the United Kingdom's security. Our alliance with the United States is the most important alliance that we have. The size of the American defence umbrella could not be matched, even in the medium term, even if our European partners were dramatically to increase their expenditure. America, by virtue of heritage, culture, language and history remains our ally of choice. I have no problem with the European Union's being able to act as part of the delivery arm of NATO—for example, through the Berlin-plus arrangements—if that is what is desired, but I have a problem with the EU wanting to supplant NATO rather than to supplement it. All those arguments should have come out at the Riga summit.
	There is one other issue that Europe and NATO need to deal with: Turkey. It was deeply disturbing to see the passing of the Armenian resolution in France, which was almost certain to alienate Turkey at a time when Turkey is of enormous importance strategically to this country, NATO and Europe. Purposely to set out to alienate Turkish opinion is extremely dangerous. To have Turkey move into the arms of either fundamentalist Islam or the new-found, newly nationalist Russia would be to fail to recognise that throughout the cold war we attempted to stop a sulking and resentful Turkey moving towards the Soviet Union.
	There is the potential for Congress in the United States to pass exactly the same resolution as the French. That could result only in a hugely adverse reaction from Turkey. Turkey is one of the main allies of NATO and a country of enormous geopolitical importance. We need to keep it on good terms. If those in some European countries—France, Germany and Austria—think that they would have problems incorporating Turkey into the European Union, they might want to think what an unfriendly fundamentalist state on the border of Greece would mean for European security. That may be the choice that they face.
	Defence in this country has traditionally been a bipartisan issue, and it would be of enormous benefit to the country, to our process of government and to our security if it continued to be so. For that to happen the country needs to have a genuine debate about its level of commitments and its level of resources. If we want to maintain our current commitments, it is impossible to keep exceeding our defence planning assumptions and to continue with the same budget for any length of time. Of course, our armed forces will cope. They have a can-do mentality. They will try to do whatever they can with whatever we give them, but if we are genuine about the role of the United Kingdom, we will have to look at the resource base if we are going to continue at this tempo. Alternatively, if we feel that we cannot afford the resources, we have to look at the level of commitment that the United Kingdom is able to make within the wider alliances that we have.
	When the Government undertake the comprehensive spending review, they must take into account what was said in the strategic defence review and how defence planning assumptions have been exceeded. Are they still committed to the SDR and do they still wish to act within the DPAs? Those are important questions and this side of the House will want to get clear answers when we get further details of the comprehensive spending review. Things cannot go on as they are. If the Government will not change their approach and insist on carrying on with things as they are, despite all the difficulties that have been so clearly enunciated by so many of those who have been in charge of our armed forces, the only conclusion will be that we have to change the Government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 15-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Nick Brown: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). When he referred to the danger posed to us by Russia, I at first thought that he was using an old Conservative party speaking note, but as he developed the argument I could see that he was referring to contemporary circumstances. My judgment of the current situation is not the same as his. The 20th century has not been kind to Russia and I urge him to try to look at things from Russia's point of view, rather than from the point of view that he adopts, namely, that we always have to think the worst of the Russians and to fear their intentions. Russia is a state that is in transition from a very difficult historical background and we should give it a chance to make that journey, rather than always looking for the worst and asserting it as a new threat. I do not see the situation in the same way as he does.
	The communities that I represent in Newcastle and North Tyneside have a long association with the armed services. As well as building warships for the Royal Navy at Swan Hunter and fighting vehicles for the Army at BAE Systems in Newcastle, our community has service personnel in each branch of the armed forces. We are particularly strongly represented in the artillery, the infantry and the Royal Marines. I identify myself and the community that I represent with the remarks made by the Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman in applauding and honouring the bravery of our service personnel. Today's debate is an opportunity to discuss what we expect of our armed forces and what support we give them to undertake their tasks.
	The cornerstone of the debate is our membership of NATO, which I strongly support, and the question of how best to make an effective contribution to NATO, bearing in mind our other obligations. We need to ask what it is we are setting out to do. What are the budgetary constraints? What are the capacity constraints? Those questions have not changed. I was first elected to the House of Commons in 1983 and arrived just in time to take part in the great debate about the original Trident programme. My view then was that we should do what other European members of NATO do and rely on America's strategic deterrent, and not duplicate it ourselves. There is only so much money that can be spent on defence. My view then was that our money would be better spent on supplementing NATO's conventional capacity, which we were more likely to use, rather than duplicating the strategic nuclear capacity. I could envisage no circumstances in which we would ever use that capacity, let alone independently of the Americans. Back in 1983, that was regarded in the Labour party as a very right-wing view, because it was pro-American and showed both a commitment to and confidence in NATO. Unlike other recently elected MPs at the time, I would not join the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament because of its opposition to NATO. I hold the same view now, and it is one of the small ironies of Labour politics that that view is now regarded in the Labour party as a rebel left-wing view.
	All the key features of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent—the platform, the delivery system, the warheads and even the onshore-based support—depend in part on our relationship with the United States. The Trident II D5 missiles are leased from the US missile pool. They are manufactured, tested and serviced in the US. The warheads are US-designed, and several crucial components, without which they would not work, are manufactured in the US and purchased off the shelf. The system is reliant, too, on US software for all aspects of targeting.
	I think that those working relationships with the United States are beneficial, but the logical next step is to integrate the whole thing into NATO's strategic deterrent. It is the case for having a strategic deterrent that the British Prime Minister can fire separately of the Americans that has just not been made. No Minister has been able to describe to the House the circumstances in which the United Kingdom would be completely isolated from our NATO partners with only our deterrent to fall back on. The major security threat facing Britain is not an enemy state with a strategic nuclear deterrent of its own threatening Britain alone, but not our NATO partners—the main security threat facing Britain is terrorism. The Select Committee on Defence recently concluded that the
	"strategic nuclear deterrent could serve no useful or practical purpose in countering this kind of threat."
	The money that the Government plan to commit to the programme could be more usefully spent on conventional armed forces and on specialist anti-terrorism units, which could do something to make us safer against the most serious threat.
	In his statement to the House on 4 December 2006, the Prime Minister said that
	"the investment required will not be at the expense of the conventional capabilities our armed forces need."—[ Official Report, 4 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 23.]
	I take issue with that view—the money can be spent on upgrading our strategic nuclear deterrent or it can be spent on something else. The cost of Trident in the 1980s had an impact on the budget for conventional defence equipment, and nowhere more so than on the procurement of warships and fleet auxiliaries for the Royal Navy. There are also substantial continuing revenue costs.
	I remind the House of the words of Coroner Selena Lynch at the inquest into the death of my constituent, Mr. Anthony Wakefield, who served with the Coldstream Guards in Iraq. He died instantly from neck and chest wounds when a bomb exploded close to his Snatch Land Rover near al-Almarah on 1 May last year. He was wearing standard body armour, but not Kestrel kit, which has added neck and arm protection. The coroner's finding was that Anthony Wakefield may have survived the roadside bomb blast if he had been equipped with Kestrel body armour. That is not my assertion—that is the coroner's finding. Recording a verdict of unlawful killing, she said:
	"it is regrettable that our soldiers cannot all be provided with what they need immediately".
	There are choices facing the House today. I believe that our first priority is the immediate well-being of our service personnel. We should ensure that front-line troops get all the equipment that they need—and that should be our priority.
	Strategic defence systems do not exist in a vacuum. If the argument is that Britain must have an independent strategic nuclear deterrent as well as the security of NATO's American deterrent, surely it is open to other nation states to argue that they, too, need a similar independent strategic nuclear deterrent. The hon. Member for Woodspring referred to the situation in Iran. Its near neighbours—India, Pakistan, China and Israel, and now America in Iraq—all have some form of nuclear weapon capability, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) pointed out. Our contribution is to say that we need to upgrade our weapons system and that Iran should not have those things at all. I do not see anything in that argument that would make the people of Iran feel more secure or less isolated. If ever there was a case for renewed diplomatic activity and for trying to find a peaceful way forward, surely this is it.
	The real argument for Britain's independent nuclear deterrent is not military at all—the real argument for the possession of an independent strategic nuclear deterrent is that such a deterrent is vital for Britain to maintain its "big power" role in the world, including our permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council.

Linda Gilroy: I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I can make a speech and deal with some of those issues. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that evidence taken by the Defence Committee suggested that it is not essential to retain the deterrent to maintain our seat at the Security Council? There are other strong reasons for doing so, however, as I hope to explain.

Nick Brown: I fully understand and acknowledge my hon. Friend's constituency interest in these matters, and I accept what she said about the Defence Committee's views. I shall make a similar argument myself.
	It is also argued that the independent strategic nuclear deterrent affects our status in the European Union and with America. Although I think those are the real arguments that underpin the views of those who believe in the independent nuclear deterrent, I also think that they are the worst arguments of all. There is a pretty strong case for reforming the way in which the Security Council works and who sit on it as permanent members, and reform should not be driven by who has and who does not have nuclear weapons.
	Our relations with our strategic partners in the European Union and the United States have very little to do with Britain's military capabilities and everything to do with mutual self-interest, bound together by trading and commercial relationships and a shared belief in international conventions and the rule of law. Britain will punch above its weight in the world if we spend money on the threats that actually confront us, rather than on those that do not, and spend money on things that those who are poorer and more disadvantaged than ourselves really need.

Nick Harvey: I welcome the opportunity to have the debate today. I welcome the Defence Secretary back from his recent trip to Baghdad, safe and able to give us an up-to-date account of events there. I quite understand that he has had to keep an important commitment elsewhere, which means that he has left his place. I also welcome the speech from the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), which was thought-provoking and covered a wide canvas in a balanced way. It invited us, in a constructive tone, to debate issues that we must debate now and on future occasions.
	There is no doubt that our role in the world and the role of our armed forces have moved a great deal in a relatively short time. Although it seems a long time, it is not so long ago that we were still in the atmosphere of the cold war and the Soviet threat. One of the points that the hon. Gentleman made was that in a global era, we are in every sense in a state of interdependency. The solutions to the problems that we face can be arrived at only through our international alliances and by working with others, particularly with NATO, the United Nations and, on occasion, the European Union. All those institutions have major faults and flaws, but the UN is the only show in town, so it is essential that we all work together to rebuild and develop further the authority of the United Nations and its capacity to help bring and maintain peace in various parts of the world.
	The 1998 strategic defence review identified the role of Britain's armed forces as acting as a force for good around the world. In many respects, the Prime Minister's recent speech in Plymouth updated that commitment and looked forward to Britain continuing to do that. No doubt hon. Members in all parts of the House agree and see that as our role in the future.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, if we have that lofty ambition for ourselves, there is without doubt a mismatch between the amount of commitments that we are taking on and the amount of resource that we are devoting to them. We need a debate about making more resource available. I am sympathetic to those who suggest that that is necessary, but even if we arrived at a consensus, and even if the Treasury were part of the consensus and we moved in that direction immediately, there would be a time lag between that decision and the additional capability that might result. Whether we put extra resources into manpower or into more and better equipment for the future, each of those would take time to feed through to our fighting capacity.
	The problems arising from the mismatch, the stretch, the impact on families, the result of acting beyond the defence planning assumptions, and the effect of not adhering to the harmony guidelines are all immediate problems. That is why, in the short term, achieving a better balance between the commitment that we are taking on and the resource that we have at our disposal to carry it out must entail some reduction in our commitment.
	I therefore welcome the Secretary of State's further explanations of the ongoing situation in Iraq. I believe that the Prime Minister is right when he says that we would all like to see troops coming back from Iraq as soon as possible and that that can be done only after we have been in a position to hand over responsibility in the provinces that we are continuing to run.

James Arbuthnot: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman is moving towards the sensible stance that we should assess whether we are in a position to hand over at some indeterminate stage in the future?

Nick Harvey: The Government have said that the intention is to hand over the remaining provinces in the spring. I recognise that "spring" is necessarily an elastic term. Ministers frequently say that they are going to introduce a White Paper in the autumn, which then goes right through November and December so that we do not get it until well into the following year. I am not attempting to pin the Government down precisely as to the definition of "spring", but the fact remains that the Secretary of State confirmed that that, broadly speaking, remains the intention. The question that I am keen to probe concerns the ongoing role of British troops thereafter. Our party leader has outlined a policy on what should take place, part of which is that British troops should continue to be part of the nation-building programme and to take part in training operations as part of NATO, so that in no sense are we turning our back on the long-term challenge of rebuilding Iraq.
	Let us be serious. On the Government's own estimate, by some point in the middle of this year the number of British troops actively deployed in Iraq will fall to 3,000 or so. Meanwhile, the United States has increased its deployment to 145,000. I understand why people have concerns about the policy stance that we have recommended. However, will it really make much difference if 3,000 troops leave Iraq and 145,000 continue the task? As a consequence, we will be better able to carry out our duties in Afghanistan, where we have a long-term commitment in an alliance with the United States and will be better able to assist alongside it if we take a more sensible view as regards trying to continue to operate in significant numbers on two fronts.

Liam Fox: I freely admit that my jetlag may be clouding my understanding, but I would like to know this: is it or is it not the policy of the Liberal Democrats to have a timetable for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq?

Nick Harvey: It is the objective of the Liberal Democrats that after the provinces have been handed over, we then, over a period—we suggest between May and October, but if the handover was delayed, withdrawal could have to be delayed—get our troops out of Iraq. In my view, that is the only way, in the short term, that we will be able to sustain our efforts in Afghanistan. During the recent debate on Iraq, some Members suggested that we cannot set a timetable for withdrawal, but at some point or other that is exactly what the Government will do, and all the arguments about its unfeasibility will melt away. We have proposed a time line within which it might happen, although circumstances may mean that it works out differently.
	The essential point that I am making to the House—

Adam Ingram: rose—

Nick Harvey: I shall give way before I move on.

Adam Ingram: I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should not be allowed to move on, as this is an interesting debate. Can I sum up what the hon. Gentleman is saying and perhaps comment on the evolution of Liberal policy? The withdrawal strategy that the Liberals are proposing is going to be conditions-based, which is exactly the Government's position. That being the case, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the Government's position on Iraq.

Nick Harvey: Any policy will always depend on the conditions. It is part and parcel of what we have explained— [Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Members heard what they wanted to hear rather than what was said. Of course any withdrawal from anywhere is going to be conditions-based, but our suggestion was put forward to explain to the public as much as anyone else the sort of time scale that should obtain. I do not really believe that there is much distance between the parties on this point; there are just different ways of putting it.

Julian Lewis: I would like to assist the hon. Gentleman. There is a difference in concept and we need to know which of the two he adheres to. It is the difference between setting a timetable before the conditions for withdrawal exist and getting to the eventual point, which he seems to refer to, when the conditions for withdrawal are acknowledged to exist so that a timetable to withdraw safely can be set. Which of those two is he advocating?

Nick Harvey: I say again that hon. Members may have heard what they wanted to hear. It was made perfectly clear—and I make it perfectly clear again—that all actions taken at any given time obviously depend on the conditions. What we were suggesting was an illustrative time scale of what could be achieved— [Interruption.] Be that as it may, let us look at the situation in Iraq.
	As the Secretary of State described it, further progress is being made in Iraq. I welcome that and I absolutely accept that there is a difference between the prevailing security situation in the south, for which we are responsible, and the situation in Baghdad, for which the Americans are responsible. The suggestion that, because we have different views and a different anticipation of what commitments we might need to make in the future, we are somehow clashing or falling out with the Americans is simply not the point at all. I repudiate that. We are allies of the Americans—allies in what we are trying to achieve in Iraq and allies in what we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan—but when Britain is so stretched in terms of our resources, I believe that we would be better able to honour that alliance by concentrating our efforts more clearly on Afghanistan in the future. I think that that is what the British public believe and certainly what our armed forces feel. The point has already been made that we should respond to what the armed forces themselves say and want—and they have made that clear to me and my colleagues again and again and again. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that that is the situation.
	Before we paint too rosy a picture of what is happening in Iraq, where there have undoubtedly been some achievements, we need to recognise that the situation is still very bloody and that people are still losing their lives at an alarming rate. There is still an awfully long way to go in persuading the Iraqis that what we are trying to achieve there is actually having any sort of benign impact. Without raking over the whole debate about how we got into the Iraq war—we all understand which side we come from in that debate—there must surely be some acknowledgement that pre-invasion planning was lax, short-sighted and superficial and that if we had made better estimations of the domestic situation in Iraq, fewer lives might have been lost. British loss of life, tragic though it is, has been mercifully smaller than it might have been, but the loss of life among the Iraqi population has been absolutely woeful. I sometimes hear the Prime Minister moving the goal posts about the rationale for going in, and talking about regime change and how despicable Saddam was—none of which was presented as an objective at the outset. Appalling though Saddam and his killing regime were, the number of lives lost was nothing in comparison with what has happened in the four years since we went in.
	We must remember that, apart from the inestimable cost in lives, the war has also cost a fortune in money. It is no wonder that our resources are so stretched. The war has cost us approximately £24 million a day, which will total £5 billion on 5 April. The huge black hole in our defence figures is therefore unsurprising.
	It is essential to remember what the Baker report said about the necessity of engaging with neighbouring states. I regret that the Bush regime appears to have chosen to forget that. I have not heard as much as I would like from this country about trying to get the idea back to centre stage. It is essential that we engage and form a rapport with Iran. I agree with the hon. Member for Woodspring that, even at the height of the cold war, we sustained our efforts and dialogue with the Soviet Union. It is vital to step up and sustain our dialogue with Iran. It is also crucial to engage with Syria and other neighbouring states.

Colin Breed: Was my hon. Friend surprised to read in today's newspapers that Israel had made overtures to Syria about perhaps reaching an agreement on the Golan heights, but that that rapprochement and discussion were curtailed by the Israelis because America did not want Israel to discuss anything with Syria?

Nick Harvey: If those accounts are true, it is amazingly foolish and misguided on the Americans' part. If the Israelis had got to the point of being ready to sit down and have such discussions, what possible strategic benefit does the United States regime imagine is being served by preventing them? One can merely hazard a guess. It seems foolish.
	We are in for the long haul in Afghanistan. Britain is committed to that. There is a political consensus here in favour of it and a distinction to be drawn between our actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq. We are part of a much wider coalition in Afghanistan, where we are needed. If we were not there, the Taliban would soon re-establish themselves. There is clearly much wider acceptance of the presence of foreign troops by the Afghan population than by the Iraqis, and there is nothing like the appalling death toll of Iraq.
	One must not however underestimate the difficulties that we face in Afghanistan. Our forces are stretched, our funds and troops are spread in two places, our mission there requires land and air power and there is a serious shortage of helicopters and specialists who are needed for more technical operations.
	The interesting observation was made in a letter to  The Daily Telegraph a couple of weeks ago that there are more personnel from the Royal Navy than from the Army in Afghanistan. I do not know when the Navy last fought a war for us in a landlocked, mountainous country. However, the action is a credit to the Marines and the others who are fighting there at the moment. Indeed, 1,000 or so of my constituents are serving there until April. I hear from them directly and their families the genuine difficulties that they encounter.
	Some of the reporting of the shortages is misguided and some points get exaggerated. However, there is no doubt that, on arriving in the autumn, troops were shocked to discover how bad some of the equipment at their disposal was and the amount of cannibalisation of parts that had taken place. The Taliban have proved to be an effective adversary: they know the terrain, and if we leave them unchallenged, they will return in great numbers. They retreat into the hills over the winter months, and from previous experience we know that there is a real risk of their coming back and making themselves known in the spring. The peace will not come easily, and the nation building that will be needed to make Afghanistan secure and stable for the long term will take many years.

Jim Sheridan: On equipment shortages, would the hon. Gentleman expand on what equipment we are short of?

Nick Harvey: Armoured vehicles and helicopters are two of the most obvious examples. The helicopter situation has been well rehearsed— [Interruption.] I did not say anything about body armour. Clearly, there are not only shortages; according to the accounts that I have heard, the condition of some equipment is at full stretch. I acknowledged that some of the reporting has been exaggerated and misguided, but it is equally important that the problems should not be swept under the carpet. No rational person doubts that there are such problems.

Mark Lancaster: While I accept that there has been some debate about whether certain items of equipment should be provided, I have no complaints, having served in Afghanistan, about the condition of the equipment that I was given.

Nick Harvey: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments. I am relaying accounts that have come direct to me from constituents who went out to begin their action in September. They were prepared for what would be coming their way by the accounts that they had heard and read, and they reported to me that, in many respects, things were not as bad as they had expected. The state of the equipment handed over to them, however, had been worse than even the worst case scenarios had led them to expect.

Colin Breed: I was in Kandahar last summer, as were other Members, and many of the shortages were not necessarily of the sort of equipment that perhaps the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) was using day to day, but of vital parts for aircraft repair and maintenance, for which there were long waits. To give a good example, one of the Nimrods went out with an instrument missing—a risk assessment was taken before it did so—while we were in Oman. That sort of equipment is not coming down the line quickly enough.

Nick Harvey: The example given by my hon. Friend is consistent with the sort of accounts relayed to me. There is no point in anyone pretending that all is as it could be, because that is not correct. It would be altogether more constructive to be candid about the matter, to face up to the fact that there are shortages in certain areas, and to take all steps possible to do something about that.
	I applaud the efforts of our fighting men and women in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. We should be proud of what they are doing. Given that the operation might go on for 10 or 15 years, I share the concern that the current balance of relative responsibility accepted by different NATO member states is not sustainable. We will have to keep campaigning for other NATO member states to make a more serious commitment to help us to achieve what is necessary over the long haul.
	We need more resources for our armed forces. We can see clearly where some of the pinch points are coming. We have heard recently about forces' housing, which has a significant impact on service families. We know that the more frequent call to deployment than should be the case is taking its toll on families and on children's education. When people come back from deployment needing treatment for something dramatic, the medical services available for them are absolutely first-class. However, the longer-term after care available for physical, mental and psychological problems is a long way from what it should be and from what we would want it to be. That is not to knock the efforts of any of those who are involved in providing those services, but rather to acknowledge that there is a long way to go.
	On the forthcoming debate in the House on Trident, when the Conservative Government came to the Dispatch Box with the proposal to go ahead with the current Trident system, it was after the research and design work had been done. They had a clear proposal of what the system was going to entail, what it was going to cost and when it was going to come into service. It is to this Government's credit that they have been much more open this time around at a much earlier stage. At the same stage in the mid-1970s, the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary ordered all the initial work without sharing the information with their Cabinet, much less publishing a White Paper and sharing it with the country.
	I welcome the fact that we have had a White Paper and that it has been put into the public domain, but even on the basis of the White Paper, the Government are not anticipating a main gate final decision until about 2012 or 2014. Do they believe that Parliament's debate in March this year is meant to be the last say, or will it be the first say and they expect it to come back here for a decision later? The world can change a great deal in five or seven years, and Parliament should be able to take a view in the future when it knows exactly what it is that it is being asked to take a view on.

Don Touhig: The British armed forces make a huge contribution to international efforts to improve security and peace around the world. When all the press coverage focuses on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is easy to forget that there are also significant deployments of our forces in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Cyprus. It is not just on major operations that our armed forced make a valuable contribution. They also provide massive support in terms of peacekeeping, training and advice to other countries around the world. As I have said time and again, we owe our servicemen and women a debt of gratitude, and I join right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in paying tribute to the courage, dedication and professionalism of Britain's armed forces.
	Joining the armed forces is a special commitment; it is not like taking up a job with Tesco or Barclays bank. When people join Britain's armed forces, they are joining an organisation that at some time may ask them to put their life on the line in the defence of the country. I took the view when I was a Defence Minister that we should demonstrate how much we value the whole defence family, which hon. Members have touched on. We should demonstrate that we value our servicemen and women, our reserves and their employers, our cadets, our veterans, their widows and all the families associated with them in that way. In particular, the care and support that we give our veterans who have served our country around the globe over many generations is very important.
	I have been greatly encouraged by the fact that 160 Members have signed early-day motion 356, calling on the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals to reverse the advice which denies 35,000 British servicemen who served in Malaysia the right to wear the Pinjat Jasa Malaysia medal. I hope that more right hon. and hon. Members will sign it.
	The Secretary of State gave a wide picture of defence in the world, and the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was right when he said that in defence terms we have always sought, as much as we can, to be bipartisan in our approach. I want to focus my remarks on the care and support that we give our servicemen and women and those who leave the services having served our country around the world.
	Ex-servicemen and women become veterans the moment they leave the armed forces. It is important that we remind the public of the contribution that they have made. At the same time, we must ensure that the veterans who have served our country know that help, advice and support are available, and in my view that should be available for the rest of their lives.
	For me, the bedrock of that is the work done by the Veterans Agency. I should like it to become the first point of contact in giving information, help and advice on issues of concern to veterans and their families. The agency does a superb job. Its work includes giving welfare advice, and its helpline on 0800 169 2277—I have been to the headquarters and listened to calls—gives tremendous support to those who have served Britain over the years.
	I welcomed a Ministry of Defence initiative to pilot an advertising campaign promoting the work of the Veterans Agency so that those who serve in our forces, and those who have already left, know that there is a point of contact for them to receive help and support. Our ambition should be to make the agency as well known to the British public as, say, the BBC.
	The health and well-being of servicemen and women is of the utmost importance. Our forces deployed around the globe deserve only the best. I pay tribute to the tremendous job done by Defence Medical Services in ensuring that those who serve on the front line, in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else, receive world-class medical care and treatment. Its personnel serve alongside our troops wherever they are deployed, and work alongside colleagues in the national health service to great effect. I saw that for myself when I visited the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine at Selly Oak.

Jim Sheridan: No one would deny what my right hon. Friend has done in promoting the work of the Veterans Agency, but does he agree that it is the voluntary sector that takes care of disabled ex-service people? An example is Erskine, in my constituency. The work of the voluntary sector in looking after people who are disabled as a result of conflict is one of the imponderables of life.

Don Touhig: Indeed. No matter how good the Government think they are—or local government think it is—at delivering services, without the voluntary sector in Britain many people's quality of life would not be as good as it is. I pay tribute to those who work in that sector.
	When I visited Selly Oak I met NHS personnel, and we saw a field hospital in operation. Every member of the NHS to whom I spoke was greatly impressed by the way in which Defence Medical Services takes medical support, help and care to our services in the front line. However, I am concerned about the increasing gaps in Defence Medical Services personnel, and the pressure to call up medical reservists working in the NHS.
	I know that recruitment is always a challenge for the armed forces at a time when our economy is strong, especially when we need more staff for Defence Medical Services. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give us some idea of what the Department is doing to fill the gaps, because those Defence Medical Services personnel are very important to the support and sustenance of our troops, wherever they may be serving.
	There is common consent that troops on operations around the world receive first-class care and attention, and it goes without saying that that is crucial to their well-being. It is long-established practice, however, that responsibility for the medical care of ex-servicemen and women passes to the NHS. I do not detract from the wonderful work that the NHS does, but I think we should do more. That is relevant to what was said by my hon. Friend about the voluntary services. If we truly value the men and women who are currently serving around the world in support of Britain, when they become veterans they should be able to receive specialised medical provision when they need it, and in my view that service should be provided by the Ministry of Defence. It is important for Defence Medical Services to continue treatment and support after service when people are demobilised, in partnership with the NHS.
	I know that there is a view in the MOD that our servicemen and women can obtain priority treatment in the NHS when they have left the services, but I see little evidence of that in practice. I know how difficult it can be. One way in which the MOD could provide aftercare is through the reserves mental health programme, details of which were announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), Under-Secretary of State for Defence and Minister responsible for veterans, in a statement to the House on 21 November 2006. The programme is open to any current or former member of our volunteer or regular reserves who has been demobilised since 1 January 2003 following overseas operational deployment, and who believes that it may have adversely affected his health. He can ask his GP to refer him to the programme. The GP is then kept informed of the individual's progress to ensure that both he and RMHP staff are in possession of all the facts about the individual's continuing health needs.
	That was a groundbreaking development, but although it is a step in the right direction I believe that we should go further. I would like to hear that the Ministry of Defence is progressing work to offer that after-care to veterans who have been in the regular forces. I looked into that when I was in the Department and I know the difficulties and problems involved, but I hope that that work is being progressed.
	Many Members will be aware of the excellent work done by Combat Stress. It does tremendous work in supporting veterans suffering from psychological disability as a result of their service in the British armed forces around the world. I recently spent some time with one of the workers for that charity, visiting veterans in my constituency; some of them are in their 20s, and they are suffering terribly as a result of incidents that took place during their service in the British armed forces.
	I was hugely impressed by the commitment of Combat Stress, and I praise the MOD, which provides about £2 million a year to help it; it is worth every penny of that. However, it is time that the Government took on the ongoing role of supporting those who have left our armed forces. To do that would send a good message to those currently serving Britain on the front line around the world. Such work could, perhaps, be done in partnership with Combat Stress.
	In terms of the issues that I have touched on, benefit would be gained from there being a much enhanced Department for Veterans with a wider remit to take responsibility for veterans' health care and welfare and employment issues, and to ensure that the Veterans Agency becomes the first point of contact when people need help after demobilisation. Again, if that were done it would send a good message of care and support to our troops around the world.
	There is such a Department in the United States of America. Since 1989 the Department of Veterans Affairs has had a Cabinet-level position in the US Government. I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should engage in a reshuffle at the current time, or that we follow the American example, but I know from my own experience that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who is the Minister for veterans, is responsible for everything from the Met Office to the Hydrographic Office, from MOD police to low-flying aircraft, and from recruitment and training to reserves and cadets.
	The Government have done a great deal to demonstrate that we value the 10 million people in the veterans community. We created the first ever veterans Minister, but it is time that we take the next step and create a Department for Veterans Affairs. In terms of the wider debate, I hope that that would send a positive message to the men and women serving in the British armed forces around the world that when they return to this country, they and their families will be cared for, and that that care will be ongoing—that as long as they need that we will be there for them, as they are currently there for us.

James Arbuthnot: The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) has just done an extremely good job in singing the praises of the help that is available to those outstanding men and women who have served their country. I commend him for the work that he did when he was in government to improve those services, and I commend the Veterans Agency for the work that it does.
	Members who serve on the Defence Committee are very lucky because we have the chance to visit our troops in the theatres where they are deployed. Although we read in our newspapers stories of poor equipment and demoralised men and women, we have the good fortune to see the reality. There are problems—as the Secretary of State was the first to acknowledge. We on the Defence Committee consider there to be problems with strategic lift. When we were in Iraq, we experienced problems both with lift and with armoured vehicles—those that we have there are old and hot.
	The pressure on our armed forces leads to all sorts of pressures in terms of reductions in training. On that point, I congratulate the Secretary of State on his constructive response to my concerns about the future of Bordon as a result of the defence training review. It is essential that the Ministry of Defence works closely with the community of Bordon to ensure that that review is good for it as well as for the MOD. I thank the Secretary of State for assuring me that it will be.
	Despite all the problems that we have read about in the newspapers, when we visit our troops in theatre, we meet people of quite extraordinary quality and with very high morale, because of the way that they are led, the job that they are doing and the fact that they are extraordinarily busy. They also have better personal equipment than they have ever had, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) confirmed in his intervention on the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). The disparities between personal equipment and larger equipment are the reconciliation of the little debate that they had. Our troops are not only the best in the world; they are, I believe, the last remaining institution in this country that has the deep respect of the country and of the world, so they must be doing something right.
	Last June, the Defence Committee visited Iraq—we debated that last week, so I will not spend too long on it—and we were most impressed by the work being done in Basra then by the 20th Armoured Brigade and others. There is a real difference between Multi-National Division (South-East) Basra, and the rest of Iraq. We came away with the impression that the south-east of Iraq is not a hopeless case. The Iraqi 10th division was rapidly becoming more capable, and it should be possible to hand over more responsibility to it and to be confident that it will acquit itself well.
	I welcome what the Secretary of State said today about the remarks last week of Ambassador Khalilzad, who reminded us all that we have two roles. One is to run MND (South-East) and to hand it over as soon as is feasible to the Iraqis; but the other is as a coalition partner of the United States. For that reason, in that latter role the Defence Committee visited not only Basra but Baghdad. Again, we came away with the conclusion that the situation in Baghdad and in Iraq as a whole was not hopeless. We were impressed by the courage and determination of the politicians there, especially those who have been targeted and who have lost family members to terrorism in Iraq. They want to run Iraq themselves and they want to do it well; we must give them that opportunity. The question must be whether they are going to be able to do so.
	I am not convinced that the United States' plan is going to succeed. I am not convinced that 20,000 extra troops will be enough to cure the grievous mistakes that were made in the first two years. I am not convinced that the plan is supported even in the United States of America, let alone in Iraq. I am dismayed by the wholly different tones of the Iraq study group report and of the Kagan report, on which the United States' plan has clearly been based. I am confused by the British Government's support of both. How can one run a coalition when there is such a completely different approach to constructive engagement with Iran and with Syria? I do not know the answer to that question, and we do not get one by simply pretending that there is no difference. There is one thing that I am absolutely sure of: we should not be committed to an arbitrary date for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, notwithstanding the utterly charming and delightful defence of his position by the hon. Member for North Devon. I gather that we have now moved to an illustrative timetable for leaving Iraq.
	The Defence Committee also visited Afghanistan, last July. Again, we met some extraordinarily impressive British people serving their country, not only in the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps and the 16th Air Assault Brigade, but—crucially to the efforts of our forces in Helmand—the wonderful Chinook crews based in my constituency in Odiham. We also met the Apache crews. I am pleased to say that I had a hand in buying those fantastic helicopters some years ago. Little did we think that they would be pressed into the role of tactical lift helicopters, as we saw in that outstanding attack on the Taliban stronghold. That is only one example of the imagination and courage shown day in and day out by British men and women in theatre.
	In our report, we express concerns about national caveats from NATO rules of engagement. I repeat those concerns now. We expressed concerns about the commitment of other NATO allies towards an engagement for which they voted. I repeat those concerns now. My Committee will hold an inquiry into NATO to see whether it is doing as well as it could and what its future might be. I hope that we might be able to fill the gaps left by the Riga summit, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring rightly referred. The Committee expressed scepticism that rebuilding Afghanistan could be achieved within three years. I do not express that scepticism now: it has turned to utter disbelief.
	For all of those reasons and more, we will hold a second inquiry into the deployment to Afghanistan this year. To put it in a nutshell, I am becoming increasingly worried that we are trying to bring to Afghanistan the concept of the rule of law and of central government, concepts that the country has never actually had or wanted. We are trying to do that at the same time as we are destroying the livelihood of many Afghans. That is not a recipe for success, and we see the consequences in the radicalisation of British youth here at home. There is no sense of any co-ordinated campaign plan to win the hearts and minds of people in Afghanistan, Iraq or even in the United Kingdom.
	On the way to Afghanistan, we also visited Pakistan, where I was left with one strong impression. It is all very well for us to criticise Pakistan for not doing enough to bear down on the Taliban, but the border is porous because, decades ago, the British insisted that it should be. It cannot be closed now because Afghanistan and Pakistan cannot agree on the line, so Afghanistan will not allow the fencing of the border that Pakistan has proposed. Pakistan has also deployed and lost more troops than the whole of the rest of the coalition put together. So before we insist on President Musharraf submitting himself to yet further assassination attempts, let us appreciate what he is up against and what he has already done.
	British troops are deployed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan. The right hon. Member for Islwyn mentioned the fact that they are deployed all over the world, including in Cyprus, which the Committee also visited. A tour in Cyprus is widely regarded as a sunshine tour. All I can say is that we arrived in Cyprus in pouring rain. We visited soldiers who were part of the theatre reserve battalion who were either just back from or just about to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. Our forces serving with the UN were living in appalling accommodation, doing their best to solve a truly intractable problem. The countries involved should get a grip of themselves and stop putting burdens on the rest of the international community. It is no sunshine tour.
	Of central importance to our future defence is the subject raised by the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown)—the decision on the strategic nuclear deterrent. My Committee is engaged in the third of its inquiries into that issue, this one on the Government's White Paper. We intend to produce a report in time to inform the debate in the House, which we expect to have in March. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Defence Committee is very lucky. We are truly busy, and likely to remain so.

Peter Kilfoyle: First, I want to add my voice to the House's expressions of admiration for our servicemen and women, both those who are in the field now and those who were active in the past. It is important to put that on the record, because it is often assumed that those of us who take a view different from the consensus evident in the House are somehow less patriotic or supportive of our armed forces. That is patently not true.
	I urge the House to look at the amendment that was tabled to the motion for the war in Iraq. I wrote that amendment, and had the honour of moving it in this House. People tend to remember the first half of the amendment but not the second, which extended our support for and recognition of the courage and dedication of our professional servicemen and women. It is important that that be recalled.
	This debate is entitled "Defence in the World". I cannot think of a more euphemistic misnomer, especially given that the Secretary of State's contribution seemed to revolve around the offensives in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Afghanistan deployment was legitimate and received international approval, but all of us now know in our heart of hearts that the Iraq offensive was an illegal campaign to effect regime change—an action specifically outlawed under the UN charter. Perhaps we can debate that on another day, but I am sure that that is view taken by the majority of people.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) does not take exception when I say that the tone of his remarks when he described the threat posed by Russia and Iran reminded me a little of Dr. Strangelove. I endorse what various other hon. Members said when they pointed out that Iran, which is increasingly besieged by nuclear power nations, does not share the British perspective on the matter. Again, Russia sees NATO encroaching further into the east and the US establishing a string of bases around its southern flank, so it is not surprising that it does not feel especially sanguine about the disarmament that the rest of us aspire to.
	Most of all, I want to speak about the Trident programme. I was disappointed that the Secretary of State devoted only 2 minutes of his 51-minute speech to that programme. I understood the reasons that he gave, even though they had to be prompted by an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). Without that intervention the Secretary of State would not have mentioned Trident at all, but it is too important a matter for us to pass over lightly, although we had a debate on it recently.
	The report from the Defence Committee published last June said that there was no need to embark on the Trident programme before 2014, and that matters were being undertaken with undue haste. I have read the White Paper a couple of times and, like a lot of people, was rather confused by the arguments being presented. However, I held in mind what the Prime Minister told the House on the subject. He said:
	"Ultimately, this decision is a judgment—a judgment about possible risks to our country and its security, and the place of the deterrent in thwarting those risks."—[ Official Report, 4 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 21.]
	The Prime Minister was absolutely right, and I could not disagree with that sentiment. However, in reply to a question from me he said that he relies heavily on experts. We all have to do that, but it is a commonplace to say that one man's expert is another man's dupe. There are certainly plenty of both around, so I went to my own experts. I sent each a copy of the White Paper and asked them what they made of it.
	I should be happy to share with Ministers the response that they produced, although they may feel that it is beneath them. The seven-page reply to the White Paper, entitled "The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent", was written by four people: Dick Garwin, who was in the House recently and chaired the President's Science Advisory Committee; Philip Coyle, Assistant Secretary of Defence and director for operational testing and evaluation; Ted A. Postol, the scientific adviser to the Chief of Naval Operations and the man who instituted the Trident II programme; and Frank von Hippel, who was Assistant Director for National Security of the White House Office of Science and Technology. Their credentials stand up to scrutiny, even for someone like me. They went through the arguments in the White Paper and made, in my view, extremely valid points which even I, a layman, can understand.
	In summary, the reply concluded that the decision on Trident was premature. That echoes in part the June 2006 report of the Defence Committee. The reasons are straightforward and simple to understand. First, it is argued that the lifespan of the existing submarines is longer than presented because of operational changes that have taken place since the cold war. If equipment designed to last 30 years on the basis that it may be at sea for 18 months in every five years is at sea for only 12 months in every five years, obviously the stresses and strains will be reduced. Secondly, when the Government talk about the lifespan of the Vanguard class submarines, which are the platform for Trident missiles, they have changed the goalposts. Now they speak of a lifespan of 25 years with perhaps a further five. It has been asked whether the vessels can last longer if they are refitted. The answer is no, the Vanguard class cannot have its lifespan extended. It has been pointed out that the Ohio class submarines, which do a similar job, can have their lifespan extended by up to 30 years, so somehow there must be different laws of physics.

Robert Key: Not true.

Peter Kilfoyle: Those words are not mine, but those of the scientists. The hon. Gentleman may speak from a sedentary position, but I shall not attempt to gainsay what the scientists say about the effect that decreased operational times have on corrosion on the hull.

Kevan Jones: I am listening to my hon. Friend carefully. May I suggest that he wait for our next report, which goes into this matter in detail? May I point out, however, that the Ohio class and Trafalgar class are different designs, and that the American operational methodology—that is, the time for which they are deployed—is different from ours?

Peter Kilfoyle: I accept that difference. By the way, I made a slip of the tongue. The extension is from 30 to 44 years, not an extension of 30 years, for the Ohio class. Nevertheless, that is a considerable extension.
	There are arguments about replacing parts. There is a cogent response about steam generators, for example. It is cheaper to change parts than to change the whole vessel. What I do not understand is this: if the strategic objectives of the submarines and their missiles have not changed, in extremis could we not just replicate the same design? Could we not just have a replacement consisting of a second generation of Vanguard submarines if it is necessary, which I do not believe it is? Why do we have to design a new submarine and a whole new fleet at an exorbitant cost? If, in accepting the comments of my hon. Friend about the report that is to come, we put the tender out to BAE Systems, which produced the last submarine, yet its technical specification does not match up to the advanced specifications of older American submarines, would it not be foolish to have the same company making the same product when we know it will be inferior? The real question is: why are we being forced into an early decision? Do we have to decide now? No.

Tobias Ellwood: I had the opportunity to visit HMS Vanguard only a week ago, and it was clear that much of the equipment on board the submarine had had to be replaced within its lifespan. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, we could build the same thing again—but would we want to, when technology has moved forward? We can cut into a hull and replace a steam generator or a nuclear reactor, but it would probably cost more than building a new vessel.

Peter Kilfoyle: I am grateful to accept the hon. Gentleman's advice. It adds strength to my argument: we need much wider debate before we rush in and make a decision. I do not say that as a member of CND like my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown). I have never been a member of CND—it is bad enough keeping up with the Labour party, never mind CND—but we need to engage in debate.
	Why are we being pushed into an early decision? I may be a little paranoid, but I see a Prime Minister who has been supportive of the defence establishment coming to the end of his term of office, and I see pressure being brought to bear on him by the industrial military establishment to get the decision through now. That establishment knows full well that a successor Prime Minister might take a more enlightened view—in my opinion—of what is needed for a British nuclear deterrent. That does not mean that there will be no deterrent, but that all other options will be explored, so that people are not bounced into a decision that they may come to regret.

Peter Viggers: Much as I would like to speak about strategic and procurement issues, I shall defer that to another occasion, because I want to talk about personnel—the men and women in the armed forces. Everyone is unstinting in their praise of those who serve in the armed forces. I was fortunate enough to be a member of the Defence Committee for a while, and like its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who is in the Chamber, I very much enjoyed visiting our service personnel and was impressed by their work. They are outstanding.
	The civilian world has moved on, but the armed forces world has not done so to the same extent. Doctors who used to work in the evenings and at nights and weekends no longer do so. The working time directive limits the working hours of heavy goods vehicle drivers. Health and safety rules mean that, to assist baggage handling, there are limits on the individual items that can be carried on board aircraft. In many ways the civilian world has become a more regulated and protected place.
	The armed forces, however, have not become better regulated or better protected at all. When there is an emergency, health and safety go out of the window and the working time directives has to be forgotten. I recall a visit to troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina shortly after they had moved into Vitez. We were impressed by the brilliant job they were doing; their living accommodation impressed us in a different way—it was appalling, and we admired the resilience with which the troops withstood their abominable living and working conditions.
	A year later the Defence Committee was back in Vitez, but the living conditions had not changed at all. We were disappointed about that and told the armed forces that they must give higher priority to the living conditions of their men. By that time the Dutch had turned up, and were living in perfectly acceptable accommodation—it even had flower beds outside—whereas our people were in exactly the same accommodation as before.
	In parts of the armed forces there seems to be a feeling that it is a sign of virility that troops can put up with almost any conditions. In Northern Ireland, for instance, living accommodation for our troops was absolutely abominable, in many cases. One of the reasons given for not improving it was that it would give a misleading signal to the local population—that we intended our troops to stay in Northern Ireland to assist the civil powers for a long time—so we needed to keep the accommodation as bad as it was to show that we were intending to leave. The idea that real men do not notice whether they live in a slum is wrong, and it is not the right thinking for the 21st century. Our troops deserve better—think of the lives that they live and the risks that they run. Hon. Members who have been to Northern Ireland will know that people there live from news bulletin to news bulletin. Families of people in the armed forces have to learn to put up with real, grinding anxiety, especially if they live in a dangerous area. Our servicemen and their families deserve and need special treatment, but too often they do not get it.
	So far I have talked about serving troops, but different circumstances apply when the military and civilian spheres overlap. Even in normal circumstances there are risks, hazards and problems for service families. Moving house inevitably causes disruption, and it is sometimes difficult for the wife or husband of a person in the armed forces to get a job. There are also problems for the children, who may have to change schools. In addition, some Ministry of Defence housing is substandard. The Government should try to understand the problems faced by service families. One example of the Ministry not taking account of those problems is its proposal to focus training in St. Athan in south Wales.
	Some 60 per cent. of service ships are based in Portsmouth, and most naval families have decided to make their homes in the south Hampshire area, so that they are near the place where their ship is based, and where they do their training, as that minimises domestic disruption. Moving engineering training to St. Athan will tear the heart out of the Navy, because service personnel undergoing training will be based in St. Athan during the week, but at the weekend they will need to travel back to their homes, which will probably still be in the Portsmouth area. That will place an intolerable burden on naval families.
	The worst problems of all occur when things go wrong. Sometimes, service personnel and their families are exposed to totally unacceptable conditions, and I shall give three examples. It is well publicised that there is a huge backlog of inquests in Oxfordshire because service personnel who are killed overseas are brought back to Brize Norton, and the inquest needs to take place in the Brize Norton area, which falls to the Oxfordshire coroner. It is intolerable that there should be a three-year delay in holding inquests. Three extra coroners are being drafted in, but there are still 70 cases outstanding. Think of the grief and distress that that will cause to families.

Tobias Ellwood: Would my hon. Friend consider the idea of having a dedicated MOD coroner to look after service personnel who are, tragically, killed overseas?

Peter Viggers: That would be one way of solving the problem. Another way, although it might require a change in legislation, would be to enable the inquests to be held elsewhere—for example, in the area that the serviceperson came from. As I will say later, what the Ministry of Defence should do, both in respect of that problem and others, is take on other Departments, such as the Home Office, and find a solution. I do not know what that solution is, but a solution must be found.
	My second concern relating to service personnel is about Defence Medical Services. The subject was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who once had responsibility for it. Many a time, the House has heard me explain how distraught the population of Gosport and south Hampshire is that the only remaining military hospital, the Royal hospital Haslar, is to close. The Ministry of Defence is withdrawing funding from 31 March, and it is pinning its hopes on a move to Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham. The move is not working well—and it will not work. There are staff shortages—in some cases, of as much as two thirds or three quarters—in some medical specialties, particularly general medicine, orthopaedic medicine, general surgery and anaesthetics.
	Although it is possible for the Ministry of Defence to recruit people to the armed forces to train as doctors—their training is paid for, of course, by the Ministry—retention is a major problem. The overall plan was to move Defence Medical Services to Selly Oak and to build a £200 million centre for defence medical personnel, accommodation and training. That was cancelled, and the plan now is to use RAF Lichfield, which is 15 miles away, on the wrong side of Birmingham. That is not working, and I forecast that it will not work. I asked to visit Selly Oak hospital because I was told by the Ministry of Defence that the plan was working fairly well. That is not what I hear elsewhere. I was told that I could not visit the hospital, and instead a briefing would be given in my constituency to people who are concerned about the issue. I have reiterated my request because I think that it is my duty to go to Selly Oak to see how the hospital is functioning.
	There is an alternative solution to the problem—a south Hampshire solution. We should retain Haslar hospital, which is needed for civilian purposes anyway and can also be used as a mess and training centre, and we should link Haslar not only with Portsmouth, with which it is currently linked, but with Southampton university hospital. That would give medical training to the personnel who require it, across a broad spectrum, and would solve the problem of retention and morale in Defence Medical Services.
	The third area where the Ministry of Defence is letting down its personnel is housing. I want to argue from the particular to the general. The particular case involves a constituent of mine who served for eight years in submarines. Because of a defect in the air conditioning system in the submarine he was poisoned, developed pneumonia and was seriously ill for some time. It was thought that it might be possible to transfer him to surface ships, so he was moved from Scotland to Gosport, but then it was decided that he would not be put into surface ships. Instead, he would be medically discharged from the Navy. He has residual asthma from his experiences in the Navy.
	My constituent applied for housing through the facilities available to service personnel. The description of the process involved makes the prospects seem quite cheerful. It explains how service personnel should apply to the joint service housing centre, and how accommodation will be found in one of the 180 areas in which that centre operates. My constituent applied, but was not successful. The Department of the Environment circular 14/93, "Housing for People Leaving the Armed Forces", with which I was associated many years ago when I was campaigning on behalf of former service personnel who were having difficulty obtaining housing, states:
	"authorities should not impose residential qualifications which put Service personnel at a disadvantage compared with other applicants; and personnel who are returning after several years' absence to a locality in which they lived before joining the Forces have a special claim to sympathetic consideration."
	My constituents put that point to the local authorities in Nottingham and Plymouth, where they came from originally, but neither Nottingham nor Plymouth wished to know at all.
	Gosport is the current local authority. It accepts a responsibility, but the responsibility that it accepts under the law is that it must provide accommodation when a family is homeless. That means that they must be, in effect, on the street. The Ministry of Defence has taken proceedings against my constituent. It has obtained a possession order for the house, and in doing so has applied for costs, so my constituent had to pay £220 to the Ministry of Defence for the privilege of being evicted from his own house.
	The situation as it stands is that, in due course, the bailiffs will turn up at that man's house, he will be evicted and will then be given bed and breakfast for himself. He has a wife and four children. He also has furniture, which presumably would need to go into storage, and two dogs, which might go into kennels at a cost of £8 a day. I put it to the Minister that it is totally unacceptable that an individual, through no fault of his own, should have been put in that situation. In parenthesis, I mention that one of his daughters was in Ministry of Defence accommodation when the boiler was noticed to be defective. That was reported, but, before the boiler could be repaired, it scalded the daughter, who requires skin grafts. That kind of situation is completely unacceptable.
	All three issues—the delay in inquests; defence medicine, which interrelates with the national health service; and housing—involve the Ministry of Defence overlapping in its responsibility with other Departments. The Ministry of Defence has had good service from individuals, but at the end of that period, for one reason or another, the individual cannot get the treatment that he or she so richly deserves. I put it to the Ministry of Defence that there should be a new understanding between it and other Departments whereby service personnel are not disadvantaged in that way, but given the kind of treatment that they merit on the basis of their service.

Michael Meacher: In a wide-ranging debate, the Front-Bench spokesmen concentrated, quite naturally and properly, on the issues that face us in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to those continuing hostilities, two issues of overriding importance affect our stance on security. First, there is the question of our response to the growing evidence that the United States or its proxy, Israel, may unleash a military strike and possibly a nuclear one against Iran's nuclear facilities. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) mentioned, there is the decision on Trident. I shall comment briefly on both issues.
	I assume that if there was a US military attack on Iran there would not be any UK military involvement whatsoever, but I am not wholly convinced that our participation has been ruled out, so we must consider how a decision on the UK response would be made. As we learned from the Iraq war, it is astonishing that the decision to go to war—the gravest decision facing a nation—is still taken by one person alone in this country, namely, the Prime Minister of the day. There is no requirement to seek parliamentary approval and, even more astonishing, if the Prime Minister allows a parliamentary vote, and that vote is against war, he would still be within his rights to ignore it, as he has absolute power to commit the nation to war. That may be unlikely, but it is, none the less, an untenable position.
	Under the royal prerogative, which dates back centuries, the powers of the Crown exercised by the Prime Minister, without consultation in Cabinet or in Parliament, include the right to make war, to make peace and to sign and ratify treaties. The democratisation of prerogative rights is being actively sought by all political parties, and in opposition the Labour party stated that it would ensure
	"that all actions of government are subject to political and parliamentary control, including those actions now governed by the arbitrary use of the Royal Prerogative".
	It went on to emphasise the fact that the decision to go to war and the ratification of treaties were special areas of concern, and that is clearly the case.
	It is high time that those pledges were implemented. We urgently need a convention that requires the approval of Parliament to be sought before British armed forces are deployed and take part in military action. The Prime Minister should be required to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the proposed objectives of the action and its legality, including—and we remember the Iraq affair—the Attorney-General's full advice about the legality of any such action. That would still allow the Prime Minister, if he deemed it urgently necessary, to deploy troops before the approval of the House is given.
	In such circumstances, which are likely to be rare, the Prime Minister should still have to lay the report before Parliament within seven days after troop deployment had begun. Such demands are not out of step with constitutional practice elsewhere. In the US, for example, the war powers resolution of 1973—more than 30 years ago—requires that if the approval of Congress for waging war is not secured within 60 days, the President must withdraw US forces within a further 30 days. For all these reasons, will my right hon. Friend make it clear in his winding-up speech what plans the Government have to abolish, as we promised to do before 1997, the royal prerogative to commit the country to war, and in its place—I believe that this has wide support across the House—to regularise a democratic procedure by requiring a parliamentary vote of approval on a substantive motion?
	The second issue is Trident. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he has already taken the decision to replace the system. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend said so eloquently, at present the biggest danger that we face is the threat of terrorism on our mainland. For that, of course, nuclear weapons are useless. The only argument to justify Trident replacement, to which the Government always resort, and I think this also applies to the Opposition— when one is opposing both Front Benches, one feels confident of the rightness of one's cause—is that although nuclear weapons are irrelevant to our current security concerns, and even though we are now in an utterly different post-cold war environment, we may at some future point, inevitably unspecified, face either a rogue state, a re-emerging nuclear Russia or a nuclear-armed superpower like China.
	I want to examine that argument because, in the last analysis, it is the only serious bottom-line argument that is advanced. It is seriously flawed on at least three counts. First, as is or should be widely known, our nuclear deterrent is not an independent British nuclear deterrent—again, my right hon. Friend with whom I had not collaborated before the debate, made the point excellently. We depend on the Americans for the warheads, the fuse and firing systems, the nuclear explosives, the warhead casings and the guidance systems. We cannot fire the missiles without US-supplied data and satellite navigation. As my right hon. Friend went on to say, we do not even own the missiles. They are leased to us by the Americans from a repository on the east coast of the United States under a system which, I believe, is known as rent-a-rocket. If we ever needed to stand alone in a situation where we did not have US approval, we would not be able to do so.

Tobias Ellwood: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman's argument; I merely offer a word of clarification. My understanding is that once the missile is fired, it leans on no other technology whatever. There is no satellite navigation. If the Prime Minister decides to press the button, no other mechanisms are involved. It is an independent deterrent.

Michael Meacher: I would dispute whether that is the case—whether there is no satellite navigation involved. Irrespective of that, there are several other aspects of the system which are clearly dependent on the Americans. That is the key point. It is in no sense a genuinely independent British nuclear deterrent.
	Secondly, we get all that kit at a political price. The Americans offer it to us not because they depend on us for the defence of the west, but—this is why they are so happy to do it—because it makes us subservient to US foreign policy, as we have seen, tragically, over Iraq, where we apparently felt obliged to follow them, over Lebanon; and perhaps in future over Iran. To continue with that subservience for the next 30 or 40 years, which may well be the implication of this decision, is far too high a price to pay.

Linda Gilroy: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a difference between independence of procurement and independence of operation, and will he take an assurance that it is in fact independent in its operation?

Michael Meacher: There is obviously a distinction between the two, but if we are going to have a genuinely independent British nuclear deterrent, we need independence both in procurement and in firing and navigation.
	Thirdly, the central argument that is advanced is that however marginal and remote may be the contingency of some future nuclear attack on the UK, the possession of nuclear weapons is still absolutely indispensable for our security. If that is assumed to be so for us, the same argument will naturally be used by others to justify their possession of nuclear weapons for the purposes of their own security. Indeed, the logic of the Government's position, as possibly shared by the Opposition, is surely to provide a strong incentive for the proliferation of nuclear weapons in many other regions across the world—particularly, I fear, unstable ones. If that were to happen—I think that in the long term it is likely—would we have a safer world or a less safe world? The answer must be the latter.

Adam Ingram: Does my right hon. Friend believe that if Britain gave up its independent nuclear deterrent, Iran would immediately stop its nuclear programme?

Michael Meacher: First, I have indicated that I do not think that it is an independent British nuclear deterrent. I have never taken the view that if we were to abandon the nuclear weapons that we have, Iran would immediately do the same. That argument does not hold. However, it could be argued that within the new international conference that I would like to see, we would have the moral and political authority that we do not have under the current proposals to press the case for preventing nuclear proliferation from going further.
	To put the argument in the context of today's situation, how can we insist that the UK must maintain its nuclear weapons to guarantee its security and at the same time lecture Iran to the effect that it does not need nuclear weapons for its own security and that the safety of the world will be compromised if it is allowed to go down that route? The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made a good, balanced and thoughtful speech, but I was not impressed by his argument that the situation in Iran is very different because of the wild rantings of President Ahmadinejad. I agree, of course, that that inflammatory rhetoric is extremely unhelpful, and it would be much better if he did not use it—[Hon. Members: "But he has."] Yes, but the point about Ahmadinejad, which is perfectly well known to the British Government, is that he does not have the power in Iran—that lies exclusively with Ayatollah Khamenei and the senior ayatollahs around him. It would be quite wrong to take the view that we are justified in preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons and, apparently, quite justified in attacking the country militarily just because Ahmadinejad made a statement—an extremely unwise one—about Israel.

Julian Lewis: Irrespective of the argument that there is all the difference in the world between constitutional democracies having weapons of mass destruction and dictatorships that make explicit threats to annihilate other countries having those weapons, the right hon. Gentleman has to recognise that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty makes a distinction between five countries, including ours, and our obligations and many other countries, including Iran, and their obligations. We are observing our obligations and we are not undermining them by continuing to have a minimum strategic deterrent, whereas Iran is threatening to break its obligations.

Michael Meacher: As I have already made clear, I am critical of Iran for its abysmal record on human rights and in other respects. I was just about to come on to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The truth is—of course, and as we all know—that the NPT was built on a deal whereby the non-nuclear countries would agree not to seek nuclear weapons on the condition that the nuclear countries would proceed in good faith towards full nuclear disarmament. That is what the deal says, and it will not convince anyone that we are genuinely fulfilling our side of the bargain if we replace the Trident system. I am glad that the Government are cutting the available operational warheads to fewer than 160 and making a corresponding reduction in the stockpile of warheads. I agree with that, but to claim that it is consistent with the NPT is, I fear, sheer casuistry.
	The case for Trident replacement simply does not stand up. It is based, I suspect, on the aspirations for top-table status among the military and political top brass and perhaps—I genuinely recognise this—on an irrational fear in the aftermath of the cold war. The truth is that none of our wars was ever won by nuclear weapons. None of our enemies was ever deterred by them. General Galtieri was not deterred from seizing the Falklands even though we had a nuclear bomb and he did not. The US had nuclear weapons, but that did not prevent it from being defeated in Vietnam or now in Iraq. The French had nuclear weapons, but it did not save them in either Indochina or Algeria. Israel had nuclear weapons, but it was still chased out of the Lebanon by Hezbollah in 2000 and again last year.
	Very briefly, my last point is that it is important to remember that more nations have actually given up nuclear weapons over the past generation than have developed them. For example, Brazil, Argentina, Ukraine—and other former Soviet states—and South Africa gave them up and they do not regard themselves as any less safe now than they were before. That sets a precedent that we should follow.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I give notice that I am going to impose the short-speech rule as close to 4.30 as possible, in order to ensure that hon. Members who have been waiting will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I anticipate that, at that stage, the limit will be about eight or nine minutes.

Robert Key: The Prime Minister says that he wants a national debate about what sort of defence forces we should have. I welcome that. I suspect that the conclusion will be that we have no choice. Against the current position of overstretch and underfunding—in respect of people and procurement—we need to take a long view of how we got to where we are and where our nation and our military want to be in the future.
	Our history and our heritage teach us—and economic necessity today demands—that we must sustain and pay for armed services trained and equipped for high-intensity warfare, with global reach and complemented by a strong diplomatic service. Both should be underpinned by increasingly sophisticated security services and intelligence networks.
	In the nave of Salisbury cathedral fly the regimental colours of proud Wiltshire units that have served down the centuries all over the world. One is a tattered flag that was carried up the Potomac river in 1814, when our troops sacked the White House in Washington. Today—this very day—sees the sad end of that great military heritage as the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Light Infantry, like many other regiments, ceases to be, but we welcome the birth of a new regiment: the Rifles. I wish it a great future.
	The British have taken our language, ideas, trade and armies across the entire globe. Gone are the days of empire. The legacy is there—but we are not going to stop now. However, defence must start with the homeland. Some people thought that that was all over after the allied victory in the second world war. The slaughter in Northern Ireland rarely spilled over to us on the mainland. However, 9/11 changed all that. The Conservative party called for a dedicated homeland security Minister some years ago. The Government now look as though they might oblige by splitting the Home Office in two.
	British forces are needed to protect the United Kingdom's global interests in trade and shipping. More than 90 per cent of our imports come by sea. Those trade routes and vessels must be secure from foreign state intervention as well as from terrorism and piracy. That is why our forces must have global reach and power projection by land, sea and air. That must include amphibious capability, unmanned maritime systems, increasing use of unmanned combat air systems and space-based remote sensors. In other words, we must spend more on defence-based research programmes and do more collaborative work with our allies, including Australia.
	Keeping the peace is also a legitimate function of Her Majesty's forces. They are good at it—they are the best. I have seen that for myself in Bosnia and Kosovo. In Afghanistan, they are fighting a war as well as keeping the peace. In Iraq, our forces are in harm's way, suffering the consequences of little or no post-conflict planning by the Government and our major allies. However, British forces should not be forced to become a gendarmerie, which is a different function from peacekeeping. They are in danger of becoming one because of the disruption of training schedules for high-intensity conflict in the UK and elsewhere. Their skills are being blunted—and it will not do.
	I suspect that the British are genetically predisposed to belligerence. However, if we want a gendarmerie, let us create one. The British are brilliant at peacekeeping because of our national temperament. After 1,500 years of fighting each other in these islands we learned the hard way the virtues of tolerance and fairness, liberty and justice—all in the spirit of Magna Carta in 1215. We have been successfully invaded only twice—by the Romans and by the northern French, led by a Norwegian, but we were never subjugated.
	I pay tribute to all my constituents who work at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down and at the Health Protection Agency, which is also based there. They are a vital and increasingly important part of Britain's defence at home and around the world—they may deploy anywhere at a moment's notice to defend our people and our interests.
	I also salute those at the Defence Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Centre at Winterbourne Gunner in my constituency, who train our servicemen and women, and the staff of the police national chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear centre, which is also in my constituency, who have trained more than 7,000 police officers from every police force in the United Kingdom and other emergency services in the country.
	Of course, at Boscombe Down, the Qinetiq team supports the Royal Air Force. It produces remarkable avionics in addition to maintaining the Empire test pilot school, which trains all our fast jet pilots and those of our allies. However, I ask the Minister to press harder for a solution to the problem of the eight Chinook helicopters which were delivered to Boscombe Down in 1982. I was told in October that a deal was being done with Boeing to bring them back into service. I had hoped that it would be completed by the end of November, but we have not heard a word. Will the Minister tell us in his winding-up speech what is happening to those eight Chinook helicopters?
	We could not do without the Ministry of Defence police. They were originally founded by Samuel Pepys as royal dockyard police, and their officers now have full constabulary powers and extended jurisdiction in the UK to protect service personnel and their families as well as sensitive units and locations. They are currently deployed in Kosovo, Bosnia, Cyprus, Iraq, Sudan, Sierra Leone and the Pitcairn islands. The Ministry of Defence police, with their special skills, are currently the subject of two reviews into their future—the review of community policing inland and the armed guarding review. Both those reviews impact on my constituency. In winding up, will the Minister say when the reviews will be concluded and the results announced, because the effects on the Ministry of Defence police are serious?
	Defence in the world has changed, and we must move on too. The old certainties of the cold war have gone and led to wholesale reappraisals of the role of NATO and co-operation between European nations on defence. In March, the House will debate the proposed replacement of our Trident nuclear deterrent. The Defence Committee is embarking on its third report on that so that we are all better informed before we decide on the issue. I urge the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) to wait for that report before being so definite about some of the technicalities that they described.
	At a time of nuclear proliferation, I would take some convincing that we should not legally—I am sure that it is legal—upgrade our systems and build new submarines. There has been no evidence to suggest that unilateral action by the UK would make the slightest difference to others who are not signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and who are developing new nuclear weapons capabilities. We will continue to need a nuclear deterrent deployed at sea somewhere in the world. Those submarines must have global reach to defend British interests—trade and otherwise.
	Britain will have to spend more on defence as a proportion of our gross national product. We must be able to pay our forces more, equip them better and deploy them with the weapons and equipment to do the job. We must also think afresh about why we and other European nations need to define defence in new terms. Homeland security and territorial defence are vital. Increasingly, protection of energy infrastructure, from gas and oil pipelines to wind farms and nuclear power stations, will be seen as important. The politics of energy may dominate, but there are parts of Europe where the politics of water and food are also increasingly important. As the climate change crisis climbs the political agenda, carbon emissions will also threaten peace and stability. Poverty and economic migration already cause great friction between states: even Portugal and Spain have their problems, as do Italy, Greece and Turkey.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) spoke about Turkey, and so will I. Turkey will become an even more important defence ally in future. The Turkish people, descendants of the Ottomans who ran a great European empire, are vital to the interests of peace and stability in their region, and vital to our interests too. I am astonished at the negative attitude to Turkey in Germany and France in particular. I am also gravely disappointed by the antics of some Members of the European Parliament who seek to block Turkey's logical and welcome membership of the European Union. Turkey is a member of NATO and vital to western interests. We should welcome Turkey and thank her for many years of solidarity, through dark and difficult times in Europe and the west, from her position on our continent.
	Given the absolute necessity of increasing financial, trade and manufacturing partnerships with China—a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty—and India, which is one of several nuclear powers outside the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, we should work hard not just on our diplomatic relations with those great nations, but on our military collaboration. Time after time, we have seen that close military relations and exchanges of service personnel yield huge dividends for Britain and improve our security. I also commend the Australian Government, under Prime Minister Howard, for deploying Australia's excellent military forces, not only in their natural sphere of influence—the Pacific—but for bearing their share of coalition operations in the middle east and elsewhere.
	The challenge for this Government and the next—Conservative—Government will be to convince the British people that our future prosperity depends on matching defence requirements with defence resources. As the fourth largest economy on the planet, we can well afford to reprioritise our national budget in favour of our defence in the world, and we should do so.

John Smith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this important and—at least until now—interesting debate. We have heard a number of far-ranging speeches. I particularly welcomed the contribution by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I pay tribute to him and the work that his team is doing in securing defence in the world for this country.
	I was also pleasantly surprised by the contribution of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). He made a good and balanced speech. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I did not agree with all of it. I certainly did not agree with his comments on NATO and the Riga summit. I attended Riga and my impression was quite the opposite. The commitment given by our United States allies in particular and all our European allies to the future of NATO was strong and welcome. Although they did not extend the remit or future goals of NATO, they made one thing clear: our success or failure in Afghanistan will determine the future success of NATO and its role in this country's defence. I welcome that.
	Similarly, I did not agree with some of the hon. Gentleman's threat scenarios, but he was right when he said that we should keep all our options open when we consider the security of this country in an ever-changing world. It is not simply a case of the very new threats, which are real and great, but the need not to take our eye off the ball afterwards. I was concerned to read, as everyone else did, that the Chinese succeeded in taking out a disused weather satellite with what I understood to be an intercontinental ballistic missile. I cannot speak for anyone else, but it sent a shiver down my spine because it enhanced the strategic threat that China poses to the world when we have always considered it to pose a tactical regional threat. The traditional dangers are always out there.
	Clearly, the biggest threat we face—this is why we are fighting on two fronts, with two sustained conflicts, in Iraq and Afghanistan—is the direct strategic threat to this country from international terrorism. We have no option but to tackle that problem at source. Again, the hon. Gentleman was right to say that we should start looking afresh at our defence strategy. Indeed, the Prime Minister recently said that we should have a new debate on defence, and I agree.
	The hon. Gentleman was generous in pointing out that the Government's strategic defence review was a welcome document. It was foreign policy-led and identified some of the threats that we faced in the future and some of the things that we needed to do to address them. We then had the new chapter, following the 9/11 attacks, which added to the SDR, and the White Paper, which set out our capabilities for the future.
	It is my belief that there has been a paradigm shift in the nature of the threat away from what we historically looked at to the new invidious and horrendous threats from an enemy that places no limit on the weapons it is prepared to use; nor does it place any limit on the number or type of people, including non-combatants, that it is prepared to kill. It is also prepared to die in the process. That is an unprecedented and qualitatively new threat. We should look at our defence policy in relation to it. Perhaps we should consider a new covenant with the armed forces, arising from that threat, setting out what we expect them to do now that we did not expect them to do in 1997, when the scope of the SDR was first drawn up.
	Most members of our armed forces—who do a magnificent job every time and wherever they are deployed—did not join the forces to fight on a regular basis; they joined the forces to prepare to fight, as and when it was needed. The vast majority of servicemen and women did not actually fight between 1945 and the present day, but that is now changing. A large proportion of our service personnel are not only expected to fight but end up fighting, not just once but again and again in the most difficult circumstances, and not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but in west Africa, the Balkans and all over the world. That is a new arrangement, and we must recognise the commitment that our soldiers are now making.

Mark Field: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The problem is particularly acute in the case of the Territorial Army, many of whose members did not expect to fight at all. Now their families and employers are being asked to tolerate a second or third tour, which is making things impossibly difficult for many Territorial Army units throughout the country.

John Smith: I agree. We changed the role of the Territorial Army—rightly—under the strategic defence review to make it more relevant to the changing threats that we expected to arise all over the world, but I do not think we expected the level of commitment and the operational tempo that are now required.
	This is not intended as a criticism of where we are, because we are where we are because we have to be there, but the present position may be a signal that we should start to think again about what the overall strategic defence requirement of the country is as a result of the shift that has taken place and the tempo at which we now find ourselves operating. I believe that that tempo has detracted from some of the other business in which we should be involved at present.
	Let me give an example. It is drawn from personal experience, but it worries me. We agreed, by and large, on the future platforms under the strategic defence review, and we agreed, by and large—although with some argument—on future force configuration. However, I am afraid that we will be blown off course and major procurement requirements will be sidetracked because of the pressure of existing operational commitments.
	How can we refocus on future needs and capability unless we consider again—10 years after we considered it the first time—a 10-year review? The Prime Minister has said that he wants a 10-year review, not just of defence but of other Government objectives. I think that some of the speeches today, particularly that of the hon. Member for Woodspring, indicate the need for a serious debate about what our defence needs are and what our future direction should be.
	I am proud of our handling of the defence budget over the past 10 years. We have maintained expenditure. I know that that is largely a result of our recent operational requirements, which have necessitated contingency expenditure; nevertheless, we have done well. But can we continue with a peacetime budget when some might say that we are in a wartime situation? I do not know what the answers are, but I think we may need to think about that in the fairly near future. It ought to be recognised that we have engaged in more conflicts recently—five major conflicts—than at any other time in the last 30 years.
	Let me end by referring to a matter of great importance which is part of the covenant that I think we should have with our servicemen and women: the provision of training, including future training, for military personnel. I congratulate the Ministry of Defence team on the announcement on 17 January that all technical skills training, phases 2 and 3, would be completely transformed and restructured for all three services. That will ensure that within five years—or a little longer—we will have one of the best military training regimes in the world. The defence training rationalisation programme—which commenced in 1999, following the strategic defence review which was part of the thinking on what our future requirements would be—concluded that the vast majority of training should take place at the old RAF St. Athan site in my constituency.
	St. Athan is a 600-acre site, and it was the largest military base in the United Kingdom. The intention is to provide a new purpose-built academy for the young men and women of our forces. There will be brand new facilities: brand new classrooms; brand new accommodation for both single and married people; brand new leisure centres; brand new sports tracks and gymnasiums; and there might be swimming pools, too. There will be the best such facilities anywhere in the world, and our servicemen and women deserve nothing less than that for the future.

Robert Walter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Smith: It will delay me, but very well.

Robert Walter: I just want the hon. Gentleman to be aware that the Ministry of Defence has spent £100 million in the last four years on creating precisely such facilities at the Defence College of Communications and Information Systems at Blandford, which now will be abandoned.

John Smith: There is bound to be resistance to the RAF St. Athan move; I heard the hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers), whom I respect very much, express concern. However, the concern about that will be no less than the concern that was expressed about the creation of the tri-service military academy for our officer corps in Shrivenham, but I do not think that any Member doubts that that was one of the best moves that the Government ever made and that that academy is one of best additions to the training provision of our officers in the history of the MOD. It is so good that officers from around the world are queuing up to get into the facility and take advantage of the training—and I am sure that it will be even better now, as I recently discovered that warrant officers are being trained now at the academy and I am certain that they will put many middle-ranking and senior officers in their place.
	We will now provide such training for all other ranks in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. There will be training in mechanical engineering, aeronautical engineering, electrical engineering, computing, information technology, intelligence, logistics, photography and languages in one of the largest military academies in the world. That will add value to our covenant with the servicemen and women of this country, who do such a magnificent job, and I thank the MOD Front-Bench team for making this courageous decision. I am sure that that had nothing to do with the fact that St. Athan has been a centre of training excellence for decades, so much so that I understand that the Minister's father trained and developed his skills there in the late 1930s. That tradition will continue.
	This is a huge investment. It will mark a step change in the quality of training. There will be the modern approach to training that we desperately need to meet the changing security environment. However, this move will also present challenges for the local community, which is 110 per cent. behind it. I am aware that contract negotiations are currently taking place, but I hope that the Minister will, when it is appropriate to do so, meet me and representatives from the Vale of Glamorgan, who want to work tirelessly to make the move succeed and to make sure that we address some of the issues involved.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am now going to invoke the short speech rule. There will be a nine-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches for the remainder of the debate. I call Mr. Mike Hancock.

Mike Hancock: Some Members might be under the impression that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) was lukewarm on the idea of the training centre being sited in St. Athan; I have surely heard him speak with a lot more enthusiasm on that subject. I want to echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers), who spoke with real concern about the way in which service families are treated. The Minister has made it clear in the past that he is understanding of those problems, but sadly, the cases that the hon. Member for Gosport identified are not unique. Given that 58 per cent. of the Navy's married quarters are in the Greater Portsmouth area, he and I, along with other Members representing the region, know only too well the ongoing problems that many of our service families face.
	The same point emerged from the speech of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who said that the general morale of the forces is closely linked to the way in which service families are treated. That was a very important point to make, and I had a lot of sympathy with what he had to say—except on Russia. The right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) was right to point out to the hon. Gentleman that he had over-exaggerated the threat, and that he had failed to realise that some of the things going on in Russia have caused the Russians to do what they are currently doing. However, I share 100 per cent. the hon. Gentleman's view on Turkey. This is an awful situation. The decision that the French took in passing their motion on the Armenian genocide problem could be repeated in the United States. I simply do not understand how that can be beneficial to the future of NATO or to the harmony that we want to create.
	I do not want to discuss the nuclear deterrent in detail today, but I want to put a marker down. A one-day debate on that issue in this House would be wholly unacceptable. Given the level of interest in it, such a debate ought to last at least two days, preferably three. This issue is vital to the country, and a six-and-a-half hour debate on it would be simply unacceptable. The House should be given the opportunity to have a much wider debate, so that more Back Benchers have a chance to contribute.
	I thank the Secretary of State for the time that he took and the generosity and good humour that he showed during his visit to the Portsmouth naval base. It was good to see him there. I had a few words with him before this debate started, and he was full of admiration for the base. He said how much he enjoyed the visit and seeing the new shipbuilding going on, and he noted the commitment of the work force, the Royal Navy and the city to maintaining the base. Other Members will doubtless make the same point about their constituency interests in this issue.
	I was delighted, as many Royal Navy personnel doubtless were, that the Secretary of State expressed the view that newspaper stories about six or seven ships being taken out of service this year were complete nonsense. He said that he had just come from a meeting with the commander-in-chief, who had not asked for ships to be taken out of service. The Secretary of State reaffirmed his position and gave a full commitment, saying that he was in no way contemplating that, and that no such suggestion had been put to him.
	No one can fail to have admiration for the men and women who serve in our armed forces. Those of us fortunate enough to have service establishments in our constituencies regularly meet service people who have returned from, or are about to leave for, other countries. That our nation has more than 20,000 personnel serving in some pretty dangerous parts of the world is a tribute to the training, dedication and commitment of those young people to doing that job. None of us should be anything but grateful for what they are doing on our behalf; we should appreciate what they are doing.
	The question that I posed earlier about the reliability or otherwise of the trained Iraqi police and army is one that one hears repeated when talking to service personnel who have been there. Their problem is one of confidence. They are concerned about what might happen if the braking mechanism of the UK forces—or the US forces in other parts of Iraq—goes. Our forces act as a brake on much of the violence that is perpetrated by some of those we have put back in uniform. In answer to an intervention, the Secretary of State mentioned what had happened in Basra with the serious crime group, which has now been broken up. However, nearly every member of that group took their weapons with them when they left their post. Where were those weapons going? Were they going straight into the hands of the insurgents? We should have considered total disarmament in that situation, as we should have done in Afghanistan when we first invaded it.
	Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I am highly cynical about and critical of the US's new plan for Iraq. For them, it is a do or die situation. They have not been able to control the area thus far, so what will they do now? It will need to be an all-out war in that part of Baghdad, but what will happen if they are not successful? When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Joint Committee recently, he likened the situation to squeezing a balloon—a squeeze in one area means a bulge elsewhere. I had some sympathy for his answer that the squeeze would not necessarily be felt down in Basra.
	We got our intelligence hopelessly wrong about the state of Iraq. We disbanded the Ba'ath party organisation and the armed forces from day one, because intelligence supposedly told us that that was the right thing to do. No one in intelligence gave us any clue about the infrastructure in Iraq and how much of it had been shot away during the Saddam years. We got it wrong.
	In Afghanistan, we have the appalling situation of young service personnel dying there while young people are dying on the streets in the UK from drug addiction fed by the very poppy crops that our armed forces are not allowed to eradicate. We are part of a community that is paying farmers billions of euros every year not to grow anything. Would it not have been possible to eradicate the poppy crop and pay the farmers to do nothing? The Secretary of State suggested that that might double the poppy crop, because the farmers would take the money and grow the crops elsewhere, but we are supposed to be in control of that part of the country. Surely we owe it to those men and women whose lives are on the line in Afghanistan to allow them to do something that would save lives in the big cities of Europe, including the United Kingdom. It is a tragedy that we have not been able to do more on that issue. We should be able to do more.
	Is it seriously suggested that we can put a timetable on our involvement in Afghanistan? I am sure that hon. Members recognise that Afghanistan is a much more difficult problem than Iraq, but the very reason we should eradicate those poppies is, as I have said, to prevent the deaths that they cause and to stop the financing of the very fight that is being taken to us. Without the financing from the poppy crop, the Taliban would not have been able to do what they have done. We should not allow it to continue. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to what has been an important and, I hope, helpful debate.

Dai Havard: I wish to address three areas, namely, some domestic issues that relate to my constituency; Iraq, which I have visited three times; and the strategic nuclear deterrent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) made a very good speech, and I am sorry that I missed some of it. As a Minister, he had responsibility for veterans' affairs and I echo much of what he said on that issue. It is important not only that we value the veterans, but that we use the opportunities we now have, with the mechanisms that the Government have introduced, including veterans' day, to link them with younger people so that they may come to value and understand the contribution that others have made, as well as the context of our political democracy, which has been fought for and has to be maintained. That development is hugely welcome.
	On another matter, the Arctic Emblem medal is to be award posthumously to a late constituent of mine called Bill King. It is a disgrace that the contribution made by the merchant marine in the second world war has been left unvalued for so long, and I am very pleased that that is being put right at last.
	I turn now to Iraq. I have read the counter-insurgency plan put forward by General David Petraeus, and the doctrine from Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute that goes with it. They have been melded together in the current overall US plan. I am less enamoured with the Kagan doctrine than I am with the Petraeus doctrine, as I can see where some of the latter has come from. The British contribution to the discussion gave US forces a better understanding of how to approach counter-insurgency warfare.
	When I was last in Iraq, a member of the US forces told me that Britain trains soldiers and not just warriors. That is the difference: the British forces are able to achieve a roundness of response that sets them apart from the Americans. We know that, to make the plan work, all the different elements must be put together.
	However, I fear that the overall counter-insurgency plan will not work. It is strapped together with the Kagan doctrine, which is hugely flawed because it does not recommend that the US engage with the rest of the world, and especially Iran and Syria, to resolve the problems that face us in Iraq.
	I believe that we will have another debate on these matters in 12 months, and that we will have to deal with the problems caused by the US approach. We will have to take account of both the military context and the political circumstances. A broader international conference is needed to examine Iraq's internal political development, the reconstruction effort, and the military consequences of the war. Those problems will not go away. One Opposition Member spoke of the Americans' "do or die" attitude, but that will not be good enough. The present difficulties are likely to return, albeit in a different form.
	British troops in the south-east of Iraq are doing a lot of good work. Our plan is to draw back and let the Iraqis take control. When I met General Latiff, the current commander of the Iraqi army's 10th division. I was able to look him in the eye and make a judgment about him. He is clearly a capable and brave man, and the Iraqis want to take over responsibility for the area. Our forces set them a good example, although it should be said that the circumstances are not as difficult as they are elsewhere in the country.
	My fear is that the British plan will be disturbed. An analysis has been made of the effects that the US plan for Baghdad will have, and I hope that we are not shown too many red cards by the Americans. That would lead to the failure of our plan to let the Iraqis take control, and that would be wrong.
	Like it or not, Britain is part of the coalition and is bound to respond when attacked. I was very unhappy with our response to an attack on Falluja much earlier in the conflict. I do not want British troops to be put in a similar position again, either by default or by design.
	At the time, I spoke to soldiers of the Black Watch as they emerged from confronting that attack. They said, "Don't put us into situations like that. We can handle them, and we did that very well here, but we didn't have the intelligence that we needed. If you're going to commit us, then commit us, but we can't be expected to be rat catchers who get bounced around for a while. We can do the job, because that is what we do, but it isn't what we should be doing."
	We cannot solve the problem in Iraq by adopting the approach that was adopted in Falluja. We will not win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people like that, or set them an example of how to build a country. If the situation in Baghdad deteriorates, I hope that we do not allow similar problems to arise by default.
	I wish the counter-insurgency plan well, but it is only partial, as it takes no account of regional politics. As a result, I fear that no solution will be achieved in 12 months, and that we will have to have another debate on these matters then.
	We on the Defence Committee are discussing strategic nuclear defence. I am trying to let the facts and information inform my prejudice, even if I do not let them change it. At least I am going through that process, and the Government should go through it too. They should let the House inform them. My fear is that everything in this debate is conflated into one thing. I wrote a list for debate that includes matters relating to the construction work; the question of nuclear powered submarines as opposed to nuclear powered and nuclear armed submarines; diplomacy, our position in the world and whether we get a seat on the United Nations; the question of capability, its retention and whether we should keep the boats; legality; the question of time for the changes; and whether equipment can be refurbished rather than replaced. The arguments are hugely complicated in themselves, but together they make a picture. We need time to sort out all those different aspects and debate them. I do not believe that the debate in March will do that. That suggests to me a predetermined position. Okay, the Cabinet has a position and has told us what that is, but it does not have to be right. We should have the debate. We need time for the political calendar to turn. We do not need to make the decision in March, nor even in 2007. That might not be convenient for certain people who will leave, but they can always sit on the Back Benches and join the discussion. They do not have to be sat on the Front Bench, do they?
	There needs to be time for a debate in Parliament and in the country, and for the political calendar to turn and party conferences to take place. Otherwise, there will not have been an open, proper discussion about all the aspects that come together in a complicated final decision that commits vast sums. My judge in all this is not the Prime Minister; it is my godson who is three and a half. I look him in the eye and I think, "What am I going to say to you, boy, about my part in this decision that will commit you and your future?" That is my determinant in all this. We all need time. This is not CND pleading or pleading from another interest group. I do not represent that. I speak for the ability to have proper, informed discussion about the issue, not simply a reaffirmation of predetermined and prejudiced positions.

Robert Walter: The last two weeks have been a sad time for my constituency as a result of Government defence policy. In fact today is a sad day, because at midnight last night the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment, which goes back to 1685, ceased to exist. We wish all the men well in their new incarnation in the Rifles.
	Of more impact have been the Government announcements of 17 January that the Metrix Consortium was the preferred bidder for the £16 billion defence training contract—one of the UK's biggest private finance initiatives. It intends to relocate the Defence College for Communication and Information Systems, including the Royal School of Signals, from Blandford to St. Athan. That means that defence training will cease at Blandford around 2011, affecting some 60 per cent. of activity at Blandford camp. The news was a blow for Blandford and the wider community. The camp provides state of the art facilities for communication and information systems training, employs around 3,000 military staff, civilian staff and trainees, and supports a further 1,000 jobs in the local economy. The South West of England Regional Development Agency has estimated that the economic footprint of the camp is worth around £300 million a year to the local area. Thus any move is significant.
	I want to emphasise to the Minister that my main concern now is for the future of the camp after 2012. On 17 January I asked the Secretary of State to tell me whether the headquarters of the Royal Corps of Signals would remain at Blandford, and whether the Signal Officer in Chief would continue to be based at the camp. I would like confirmation in the wind-up that there is a firm commitment for Blandford to become the natural home of all Signals regiments when they are in the UK, with the technical support facilities that go with that role. As I mentioned earlier, the Ministry of Defence has spent £100 million on new facilities at Blandford over the past five years; it is definitely a centre of excellence and I want it to continue as the core of all Army communications and IT activity.
	The main focus of my remaining remarks will be on the relationship between the EU and NATO member states. I have been involved in that relationship as Chairman of the Defence Committee of the Western European Union—the inter-parliamentary European security and defence assembly. I want to destroy a few myths about European defence structures, which inevitably involve current EU military capability.
	Next month we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the treaty of Dunkirk—as Michael Caine would say, "Not a lot of people know that." On 4 March 1947, France and the United Kingdom signed a mutual assistance pact, which was set in the post-war climate of friendship and co-operation and openly targeted at a vanquished Germany to forestall new aggression on its part. The French Government wanted to guard against what they considered a possible threat from across the Rhine.
	The United States made known its preference for a regional pact that went beyond mere military matters, and in March 1948 five countries—the UK, France and the Benelux countries—signed the Brussels treaty, establishing what was then called the Western European Union, designed to guard against any armed aggression in Europe, not just aggression from Germany, against its members. The treaty organised co-operation among the five signatories in military, economic, social and cultural spheres, and a collective military high command of combined chiefs of staffs was created. However, the Brussels treaty was left devoid of its newly expanded authority when a succession of other treaties was signed establishing the Council of Europe, the European Coal and Steel Community and, of course, NATO itself. In April 1949, 12 Foreign Ministers gathered in Washington to sign the NATO treaty, which incorporated the Western European Union.
	In 1955, after the failure of the European Defence Community, West Germany officially joined NATO, along with Greece and Turkey. At about the same time, the Brussels treaty was modified to create the successor WEU structure, which played an important role not only in integrating West Germany in the Atlantic alliance, but also in the restoration of confidence among western European countries and the settlement of the Saar problem.
	The WEU did not have much of a role in the early years, but by 1984 Ministers had recognised the continuing necessity of strengthening western security, and that better utilisation of the WEU would contribute not only to the security of western Europe but also to an important common defence for all countries of the Atlantic alliance. The commitment to build a European Union in accordance with the Single European Act was signed, which brought a much stronger role in defence matters. There were operational roles for the WEU in the Gulf, the Balkans and on the Danube. That situation continued until 2001 when those roles were transferred to the EU, with the military staff, the satellite centre and the western European armaments group.
	I stress that there is nothing new about the EU's defence architecture, which under the provisions of the Maastricht treaty remains very much intergovernmental—a subject for co-operation between member states. That is the key point. As debates in the Bundestag authorising the recent German-led force in the Congo demonstrate, no soldier from a European state will be deployed in a conflict situation without the express approval of his national Government or Parliament. Any talk of a supranational European army deployed by Brussels is extremely premature. EU deployments of military force will continue to be made on an intergovernmental basis among willing nations, as is the case for NATO and the United Nations.
	When considering NATO-EU relations, it is fundamental to remember that 21 of the 26 NATO members are also members of the EU, so relations between the two organisations are, to a large extent, relations between the same set of countries. Obviously, the United States is a major player, but if there is to be enhanced political dialogue, it must be among equal nations. In a speech on Monday, the Secretary-General of NATO asked:
	"Why are NATO-EU relations still so problematic?...My answer to these questions is clear and unambiguous. NATO-EU relations have not really arrived in the 21st century yet. They are still stuck in the '90s."
	That is the problem, but we have to move on. Reform is needed if we are to create and maintain Euro-Atlantic co-operation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) mentioned the genuinely disappointing Riga summit. We have to create a strong European pillar of NATO, and although the European Union is there to provide a framework, that must be done within the context of the Atlantic alliance and the wider global security system. Where appropriate, there can be a common approach within the EU. We must encourage all member states to invest in the necessary military capability, and we must make sure that their policies will strengthen the north Atlantic alliance by making a credible and effective European contribution to it.

Linda Gilroy: Just last week, the Select Committee on Defence published its fifth report of the Session, the result of the Committee's work in 2005 and 2006. That report reminded me why I have particularly enjoyed my parliamentary work this year, and of the breadth of our inquiry into past, ongoing and future policy. We considered a range of matters, ranging from the Met Office to the education of service children, as well as strategic issues such as the defence industrial strategy, and the strategic nuclear deterrent, which other hon. Members have mentioned. The latter two issues are of great importance to thousands of my constituents, as were our inquiries into troop deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq, where some 1,000 servicemen and women whose bases are in Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall are deployed.
	I pay tribute to those servicemen and women for the remarkable job that they do, and the service that they give on behalf of us all, and I pay tribute to their families, too. The fact that they do a remarkable job is reflected in the number of new year honours given to local men. Lieutenant-Colonel David Reynolds of the Parachute Regiment received the Queen's volunteer reserves medal. An award was also given to Lance Corporal Nick Coleman of D Company, Devon and Dorset Regiment. As we have heard, that regiment recently came to an end with a moving ceremony in Exeter cathedral. He is now a corporal, and received a medal for the heroic rescue of his colleagues in a "hearts and minds" operation. Soldiers were giving out footballs to children when things suddenly turned nasty, and insurgents attacked. More recently, Sergeant-Major Colin Hearne and Captain Dave Rigg, local men, were involved in an astonishing rescue of a fallen comrade, which involved their being strapped to the stabiliser wings of an Apache helicopter.
	In the time available, I want to discuss issues of concern to those working locally to support the provision of equipment for defence in the world, including the provision of the strategic nuclear deterrent. My right hon. Friend the Minister will know of the considerable uncertainties arising from industry consolidation, the defence industrial strategy, the naval base review, and the ownership of DML. As their MP, I am confident that the skilled men and women working at DML and the naval base will continue to play an important role in supporting the Royal Navy, but I know that we cannot afford to be complacent. Since December 2005 I have chaired the strategic group that brings together people in the company and in the naval base, the management and unions, senior people from Plymouth city council, the regional development agency, the Department of Trade and Industry and Jobcentre Plus to respond to the fast-changing circumstances.
	At the employee briefings last February, we heard of the potential loss of 900 to 1,200 jobs, as we go down from two nuclear submarine refitting streams to one. The naval base review is developing
	"a rigorous and objective fact base...to 'right size' our waterfront and logistic support infrastructure to that of the future Fleet."
	"The Case for Devonport" sets out how the facility there—the base of the strategic nuclear deterrent, with unique capabilities—can operate with unbeatable cost-effectiveness if the economies of scale that it is capable of offering are fully exploited. There is a track record of delivering multi-million pound annual savings—for example, £45 million from the submarine upkeep improvement programme—and we reckon that further savings of more than £120 million per annum could be released. We urge the Secretary of State and his ministerial team to look at fully realising value for money for the Ministry of Defence in the review.
	We are satisfied with the framework that has been developed, except in one respect. That has been taken up with the review team, but I will take the opportunity of drawing it to the attention of Ministers. The socio-economic impacts, like the employment impacts, need a common framework. Through a comprehensive and professional study, we need to ensure that things are receiving a like-for-like evaluation. That is essential if we are to be confident that important options are not going to be arbitrarily dismissed or marginalised.
	Finally on the naval base review, in Plymouth we realise the importance of obtaining value for money in relation to the overall MOD budget. We heard in many earlier speeches about how hard pressed that budget is. We need to get the procurement issues right because, as I have mentioned, we have many men and women who are serving on the front line and who need the right kit, in the right place. We are confident that what we have to offer at our naval base does just that, and we do not want the opportunity that the review offers to be fudged. We do not want a decision that is not clear-cut, or that is open to challenge. We want fairness, not favour. I urge my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to take that clear-cut decision.
	In the last few minutes I shall turn to the important decision on the strategic nuclear deterrent. The Defence Committee is on its third inquiry, on the White Paper. Our aim is to have a series of inquiries producing factual reports that will inform the debate. We have looked at the strategic context and the timetable. In particular, we have looked at the skills base. Next Tuesday we will have the final session, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We have previously met with non-governmental organisations, academics and lawyers. The Committee will set out and clarify some of the questions that colleagues are asking, such as, "Do we have to do this now?" and "What points in that direction and what doesn't?" The single thing that does point in that direction is what I have just been talking about: maintaining the skills base in the different bases that contribute to the building and maintenance of the submarines. I remind colleagues that it takes up to 12 years to train a fabricator. That is aside from all the senior, complex work done by the design team. The teams cannot be reconstituted overnight.
	What will the costs be? One of the reasons why we make our own submarines is that—I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) is not in his place to hear this—it is cheaper than buying them from America. There are other costs that have to be factored into the debate when thinking about what the real savings would be. People want to redeploy those savings on other expenditure—in this audience it would be on defence, but many others would argue for health and education. However, there would be decommissioning and economic regeneration costs. In Plymouth those economic regeneration costs would be astronomical. We are on the edge of what was the only objective 1 area in England. As another colleague has said, there would be costs attached to maintaining nuclear-powered, as opposed to nuclear-weapon-carrying, submarines. I hope that all that will come out clearly in the Defence Committee.
	Indeed, what is the impact on the UK role in the Security Council and our contribution to the non-proliferation treaty? I recommend that colleagues read annex A of the White Paper, as it sets out how much we have done to reduce our nuclear arsenal, which represents only 1 to 2 per cent. of the world's nuclear weapons. I would like what constitutes a minimum deterrent to be defined, as lawyers tell me that that has not yet been done. We can maintain our political and moral authority and keep our place on the Security Council—I have said that we do not need nuclear weapons to do so—and we shall return to those issues in March. It is an important decision, and I hope that the work that the Defence Committee has done will allow us to conduct the debate with more light than heat.

Tobias Ellwood: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) for her commitment to Devonport. Unfortunately, such is the state of the Navy that there is competition between the three main service bases as to which will remain intact. That is a debate for another day, but the hon. Lady spoke about her constituency with commitment and intellect.
	We have had a frank, open and educational debate, which has rightly focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, as those are the areas in which we are heavily involved. The backdrop to the debate is the Prime Minister's comment on board HMS Albion on Friday 12 January:
	"Britain has to choose whether to be on the front line of the global fight against terrorism or to retreat to a peacekeeping role."
	Perhaps we should mention that choice to our NATO allies. We have committed more than 7,000 troops to Iraq and 5,700 to Afghanistan. Unfortunately, however, the Prime Minister's words stand in stark contrast to our military capability because, since 1997, there has been a dramatic fall in the size of our Army, Navy and Air Force and the procurement process has changed drastically: the number of aircraft carriers has been cut from three to two; the number of T-45 destroyers from 12 to six; the number of infantry regiments from 40 to 36; and the number of Eurofighters has been reduced, too. Will the Minister make a commitment to maintain the Red Arrows, as there is a shadow hanging over the pride and joy of the British skies? Will he assure the nation that there is a future for that important asset in his winding-up speech? There has been a great deal of discussion about the procurement process and its effect on equipment, notably the Snatch Land Rovers, which are inadequate in both Afghanistan and Iraq, so perhaps the Minister would be gracious enough to comment on that, too.
	We are approaching the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and I am afraid that I do not agree with the glossy picture that has been painted in an effort to suggest that things are going well. I am pleased that General Dannatt was able to expose the reality of the situation, because only three of the 18 provinces in Iraq have been handed over to Iraqi control. Depending on which figures one uses, about 600,000 people have been killed since the 2003 invasion, and an average of 3,500 individuals are killed every month, according to a recent UN report. In fact, Baghdad has built a second morgue that can accept 250 bodies a day. That is the state of affairs in Iraq: we face civil war, so we must address the problem.
	I have said many times that I never supported the war itself, which was a distraction from the real concern—Afghanistan. However, we are where we are. We have heard important voices such as Carne Ross, the former first secretary of the British delegation to the UN, who testified to the Butler inquiry that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We heard, too, from 52 diplomats, including former ambassadors to Baghdad and Tel Aviv, who questioned the Government's middle east policy, which has caused us to endure many problems. A fundamental flaw in our ability to deal with Iraq stemmed from the fact that the previous Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), refused to participate in post-conflict work. We therefore missed the opportunity to win over hearts and minds and begin work on the reconstruction projects that were very much needed in the first few months after the main conflict.
	The second fundamental error was the disbandment of the Ba'ath party. I intervened on the Defence Secretary and I was pleased that he finally acknowledged that that was a schoolboy error. It should not have been done. We immediately got rid of the army and the police force, but 80 per cent. of the current army and police force are former members of the Ba'ath party. Not only that—we also got rid of all the doctors, nurses and teachers. They all went home because they were not allowed to work, yet the majority of them wanted nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. They were simply working as best they could in the environment that existed then.
	The biggest problem is the friction between the Shi'ites and the Sunnis. The bombing on 22 February last year of the al-Askari shrine, the Shi'ites' most holy site, was the tipping point. Since then, Sunnis and Shi'a have found it harder and harder to work together. There is a growing insurgency. Many of the political groupings are linked to militias, and that is taking the country further into civil war.
	Will the Minister comment on the growth of the militias, particularly the Mahdi army, which is one of the largest? I cannot see the leaders in Iraq disbanding these groups. First, they do not have the power, and secondly, the militias are helping them to remain in power. On 6 October last year, an entire Iraqi police brigade was taken out of service because it had links with death squads and looting, turning a blind eye to such activities.
	On training, we were supposed to have reached a target now, four years after the invasion, of 400,000 trained Iraqi security personnel. We are not even close to 275,000. The Pentagon has stopped releasing assessments of the number of trained Iraqi soldiers, because they are not accurate and the numbers are in decline.
	The blueprint that we have for Iraq is wrong. The US is in a quagmire, and erroneous assumptions have been made about the readiness of the Iraq Government to take over. We are in denial if we believe that. There is corruption and looting, and al-Maliki has little interest in disarming the warring factions. We are not winning hearts and minds, as we should do, and there is a growing opinion that ethnic tensions have gone too far.
	We are obsessed with keeping the original borders. Tens of billions have been spent to try and avoid civil war, but that has failed. We could easily move a third of the population of 28 million, build houses, roads and all the infrastructure that is required for towns and villages, and divide the country in three on a model similar to the United Arab Emirates. We have a choice. We can change the blueprint and consider that option, or we can continue as we are doing and end up with a divided country anyway, but one divided by war.
	I conclude with some comments about Afghanistan. Iraq played a huge role in what is going on there. Too few troops went in—30,000 to begin with. Only four years later, in 2005, did we get to the heart of the Taliban's operations in Helmand province. Even now, in neighbouring Nimruz province, there is not a single NATO soldier. I ask the Minister to shout to our allies, "Where are you? Why are you not with us fighting the battles out there? Please come and join us in Afghanistan, but leave your caveats behind." The British are doing most of the work, along with our colleagues, such as the Canadians and the Americans, but where are the French, the Germans and the Turks? We will not win in Afghanistan unless we have more troops there and a more co-ordinated effort.
	My final point relates to the shortage of diamorphine in the United Kingdom. It seems ironic that when we have G8 responsibility for counter-narcotics in Afghanistan, a shortage in the UK of a commodity that is made from poppies, and responsibility for Helmand province, where a third of the world's narcotics come from, we cannot come up with a solution that involves licensing the poppy crops and preventing the terrorists from gaining from that income.

Andrew MacKinlay: The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) referred to the speech made by the Prime Minister on 12 January on HMS Albion. I read that speech closely and repeatedly, because it filled me with dismay and concern. I would not be concerned were it merely the speech of a Prime Minister beginning his valedictory tour, but it presumably also reflects some of the thinking in the Ministry of the Defence and among the current ministerial team. The problem was that he painted a canvas divorced from the need to match our resources, capacity, service personnel strength, equipment and logistical capability with our foreign policy goals. Regrettably, he failed to recognise the political reality that in future the United Kingdom's main bailiwick—the sphere in which our writ will run in terms of maximising our influence in military and foreign policy terms—must increasingly be the Euro-Atlantic region, the Mediterranean, the so-called "stans", and the vital energy-producing areas of the Caucasus and nearby Asia.
	Of course, if there is genocide in the world I want the UK to use its good offices in every way possible to minimise and prevent it. However, in the troubled area of Africa, for instance, we must be realistic in recognising that the regional powers are now Nigeria and South Africa. People might not like it, but we must, to a large extent, defer to them as regards maximising our influence on despotic regimes and our ability to intervene.
	The Prime Minister did not reflect that reality in his speech. He tried to draw a distinction by saying that some countries do peacekeeping and some countries do war fighting—a peculiar phrase. I do not see it in those black and white terms. Clearly, we have an obligation—we are a significant power in the world, and long may that be so—but we need to decide how and where we can have the maximum impact on the world and match that to our military resources. At the moment we are over-committed—demonstrably so. If something happened in our political backyard—perhaps in Kosovo or in Transnistria—where a major problem required intervention, the UK would find it very difficult to act on it, yet our constituencies would feel the greatest impact in terms of refugees and so on. I say to the Prime Minister, to the current ministerial team and to those who will succeed them in a few weeks' time that we need to cut our cloth appropriately and bear in mind the fact that we must temper our ambitions in respect of military intervention so that it relates to our foreign policy priorities.
	My next point concerns recruitment. I was dismayed to discover in a parliamentary reply from the Minister that we are not actively recruiting in our overseas territories. That is surprising, as they have a large reservoir of keen young men and women who should be invited to join our armed forces. It is also bad in principle, because ultimately their Parliament is here and we should be doing something about it. My question related particularly to Bermuda, where anyone who wishes to join the UK armed forces has to get permission to get out of being conscripted in Bermuda. That conscription, which is being tolerated by this Labour Government, is discriminatory on grounds of gender because it relates exclusively to young men. Women are not conscripted—although I am not arguing that they should be. There should not be conscription in a peacetime situation presided over and acquiesced in by Her Majesty's Government, who bear the ultimate responsibility for it.
	As we speak, some young men and women are appealing to the Bermuda supreme court to have their conscription overruled. I am asking the British Government to use their power to have a stay of implementation of that conscription in respect of those young men and women until the supreme court has exhausted that issue. That does not seem to me unreasonable. The British Government, who protest about their espousal of equal opportunities on gender in this country, should not be acquiescing in conscription elsewhere. They are acquiescing in it because the deputy governor is an ex-officio member of the defence board of Bermuda and a full-time Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomat, and the governor is the commander in chief appointed by the UK Government via the Foreign Office. It is wholly unsatisfactory.
	In any event, we need to think more about the Bermuda Regiment. Its twin, the Royal Gibraltar Regiment—comprising all volunteers, with pay and rations comparable to the rest of UK forces and very much integrated within them—is highly regarded, but the Bermuda Regiment is not. The Minister of State, in his place on the Bench there, had to confirm in a parliamentary reply to me earlier this week that if the conscripts want to go to the lavatory after 11 o'clock at night, they have to be escorted by their non-commissioned officers. That is demeaning and it is indicative of the parlous state of that regiment, over which the British Government are presiding.
	Colonel Baxter, our military attaché in Washington DC, was dispatched down there just over 12 months ago to investigate the Bermuda Regiment and he found it under-equipped and in a parlous state. In his report, which is on the governor's website, he said:
	"Junior officers and NCOs are generally weak as commanders, displaying a lack of military leadership skills."
	He also drew attention to the fact that in the equivalent of the state opening of Parliament there—the local overseas territory legislature—the regiment turned up seven minutes late,
	"largely thanks to poor time appreciation and a lack of urgency, both completely within its control. This fundamental professional error was avoidable and should not have occurred".
	He also noted that it was
	"apparent to the Royal Party".
	 [Interruption.] Some Opposition Members might find this amusing, but the point is that these people have no access to this Parliament. We have heard talk about constituency interests, but apparently no Member is taking a constituency interest in these people—other than the hon. Member for Thurrock, it would seem! I am going to dispense my duty.
	Unlike the military units of the United States, France, the Netherlands and Spain, which do send representatives to the legislature, the overseas territory people do not. That is why I say that this Labour Government are really quite hypocritical when it comes to equal opportunities policies here in the UK. Where there is disproportionate and indefensible abuse by NCOs—we know about overbearing attitudes and what happened at Deep Cut—it needs to be looked into.
	The Minister will, I know, always shrug it off. He is a jobbing Minister, who always shrugs things off and dismisses anyone who raises a legitimate point. Well, I am saying that he and other Ministers, particularly those in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, need to address themselves to what is a hidden, unspoken scandal in respect of the Bermuda Regiment, where we are conscripting people highly selectively by a ballot that is demonstrably unfair to those who win or lose that raffle. I hope that the Minister will take account of what I said when he replies and refer it to his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Julian Lewis: I am sure that the entire House will agree that it is absolutely typical of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that at the end of a long debate such as this one, he is still supplying something absolutely fresh, absolutely original and—dare one say it, however entertaining his contribution—absolutely serious.
	Before I begin my winding-up speech, I would like to say this. Twenty years ago, I had the occasion to visit the British Airborne cemetery at Oosterbeek near Arnhem. Among the serried rows of gravestones, I was interested to see a considerable number that were engraved not with the Christian cross, but with the Jewish star of David. I realised then that as far as the services in the second world war were concerned, the people from other religions who fought and died for freedom and democracy did so, from this country's point of view, irrespective of their religion because they were British and because they were proud of the values that we were all standing up to defend. That has now begun to occur in the case of Muslim members of the armed forces. I pay tribute to the first Muslim soldier who was killed in action. He was a British hero, and if we are to fight and win what is fundamentally a battle of ideas, we will depend on people like him—and on his religious community to stand up for people like him and do what is right when extremists in that community seek to add to the dangers of our brave, patriotic, British Muslim servicemen and women.
	The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) made such an impressive speech, in which he said that there was a danger of the strategic defence review being blown off course, that I dug out a copy of that document from my little portfolio. It was produced in 1998 and broadly welcomed, not least by the Opposition. It set out a basic, strategic realignment, given that the likely threats would arise not on the continent of Europe but in locations much further afield.
	It followed that, if the armed forces were ever engaged in major war fighting, power would have to be projected at a distance. We are no longer an empire and can thus no longer rely on bases in many countries overseas. We cannot even rely on overflying rights, and it was therefore necessary to devise a power projection concept of a moveable base—a base in the sea from which the armed forces could be taken to the theatre of operations and that could project power from the sea to the air, from the sea to the land and from the air to the land. From that came the essential realisation that we needed to focus on the Royal Navy in general and carrier capacity in particular.
	That strategic concept has not fundamentally changed. However, the prescriptions set out in the document for what would be necessary to fulfil it have changed. Those changes appeared in two other documents that are cited much less frequently. One is the defence White Paper, which was produced at the end of 2003, and the other is the paper on future capabilities, which was produced as a supplement to the White Paper in July 2004.
	The problem is that the two documents do not match up. The earlier document admitted that the armed forces were engaged in a much heavier scale of operations than the strategic defence review anticipated. However, the rot set in in the 2004 document because that was when the Government started making the cuts in current capabilities to fund current campaigns. They not only cut current capabilities but made cuts in future capabilities, which the strategic defence review had described as necessary to implement the strategy that everyone accepted.
	Let me concentrate briefly on the Royal Navy and one aspect of it: the frigate and destroyer fleet. When the strategic defence review was published in 1998, it stated that we would cut the number of frigates and destroyers from 35 to 32. After two wars had broken out and were being fought, we suddenly found that, instead of 32 ships to discharge that function, there had been only 31 and a further six were to go, leaving only 25.
	The argument was put forward—it was dubbed by me, if nobody else, as the Hoon excuse in honour of the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), who was then Secretary of State for Defence—that we did not need so many platforms, as the new platforms were going to be more powerful than the old ones. We always knew, however, that we were going to have those new platforms. Even at the time of the SDR, we knew that they were going to be more powerful than the old ones. The difference was that whereas the Navy chiefs had accepted reluctantly a reduction from 35 to 32 in return for getting the carriers, they were now being expected to do the same job with 25. I am not as sanguine as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) that the fleet is not in danger of being cut further, because we all know that it is widely rumoured that a Defence Management Board meeting may mothball another six frigates and destroyers.

Mike Hancock: I believed the Secretary of State when he said in Portsmouth that he had no reason to do that and that the commander-in-chief had not asked for that to be done or even discussed it with him.

Julian Lewis: I never thought that I would have the opportunity to regard the Liberal Democrats as more trusting and naive than me. I am happy to do so on this occasion. I will be delighted if the hon. Gentleman is proved right and I am proved wrong.
	We have heard from several Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood), the catalogue of woes and cuts, and the concerns expressed, with unprecedented frequency, by senior serving and recently retired heads of the armed services. I could cite General Lord Guthrie, and we all know about General Dannatt and his predecessor as Chief of the General Staff, General Jackson. And let us not forget General Shirreff's plea for adequate standards of service housing, training and health care. Of them all, however, I am particularly interested, with my Navy responsibilities, in the contribution of Sir Alan West, the former First Sea Lord, who said both in and out of office that for the tasks that the fleet is being asked to undertake we need 30 frigates and destroyers, and we are doing the work of 30 frigates and destroyers with only 25 now and possibly even fewer in the future.
	The Royal Navy had emerged triumphant from the strategic defence review, but now it is looking distinctly on the ropes. The reckless reductions have been based on the strategic falsehood that numbers no longer matter in an era of more capable ships. In reality, the cuts have been accepted for the promise of the aircraft carriers, and yet no order has been placed for those aircraft carriers, and a threat is hanging over ships seven and eight in the Type 45 destroyer fleet. Will the Minister answer three questions when he sums up? When will he order the carriers? Are ships seven and eight in the Type 45 programme under threat or are they not? Will he guarantee that the Government's commitment to the deterrent will not trigger even more intolerable cuts in front-line forces and in the infrastructure of Britain's armed services?
	Turning to some of the contributions in the debate, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) denied that there could be any danger of a Russian military threat. I hope that he is right. Twenty years ago, he would not have denied that. We must consider what the threats will be, not now but in the period between 2025 and 2055 when the next generation of the nuclear deterrent will come into service and go through its service life. The onus is on people such as him and his right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) to rebut the argument that what matters is not the threats that we face now in relation to the next generation of the strategic nuclear deterrent, but the dangers that will confront this country that far ahead.
	If I had stood up and said, at the height of the second cold war 15 or 20 years ago, that the main threat facing this country would be from fanatical religious extremists and suicide terrorists, everybody would have thought that I had taken leave of my senses. We do not know what threats will arise over the next 10 or 15 years, let alone over the next 25, 35 or 40 years. When the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) asks what he should say to his young godson about how he voted on having a strategic nuclear deterrent for that period, my answer to him is that you will be able to say proudly to your godson, if you vote for it, that you—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Julian Lewis: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will be able to say that he offered his godson the same protection against future threats from any country armed with a mass destruction weapon that we in our generation have enjoyed.
	The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton said that he would deal with the argument that a future threat might arise that would require us to have a strategic nuclear deterrent, and I was waiting to hear what he was going to say, but he did not deal with it at all. He just argued that it was not an independent deterrent, that there was a political price, in terms of being too close to the Americans, to be paid for having it, and that others will use our example to justify the retention or the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Nick Brown: I think that I answered the hon. Gentleman's point. My argument is that we can confidently rely on NATO's nuclear deterrent because we are members of NATO and that we can trust our American allies.

Julian Lewis: The point about the reliance on the American nuclear deterrent is this: we cannot rely on an American nuclear deterrent to act as a cover for our conventional forces when they are engaged against a country that might or might not have a nuclear weapon. The example of the Falklands was given and we were told that the strategic nuclear deterrent did not deter General Galtieri. Of course it did not—democracies do not use nuclear weapons to deter conventional aggressors. However, that was the wrong point. What should have been said was that if General Galtieri had had a nuclear weapon, however crude, would we then have dared to retake the islands conventionally, knowing that he could have unleashed that on us and we would not have been able to deter him?
	The nuclear deterrent has two functions, not only the one that the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton mentioned. It has the function of deterring strategic nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction attack against this country, and it has the function of ensuring that if our armed forces ever need to go into battle conventionally, they cannot be prevented from doing so by an opponent having even a crude mass destruction weapon.
	As for why we cannot solely rely on the American deterrent, it is quite simple: we are the principal ally of the United States and we go to war often alongside it, and there is a danger that an opponent might think that even though the Americans might well retaliate on our behalf to an attack with mass destruction weapons, the opponent might make the mistake of thinking that it would not and that it was easier to go after the smaller of the two allies. That mistake, with all its fatal consequences for all concerned, is done away with by our independent nuclear deterrent being under our independent control.
	Time is defeating me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I just say, in terms of what has been said about Iraq and Afghanistan, that in Iraq and Afghanistan there are doctrinal differences between our approach and that of our American allies. I believe that if we are the principal ally of the United States of America—the one country of a certain size, for there are other small countries, on which it knows it can rely—it needs to take our representations seriously, particularly in the field of counter-insurgency campaigning.
	I mean no insult to the record of the American armed forces when I say that Britain's achievements in counter-insurgency campaigns in the past feature lessons that can usefully be learned by our allies, and that, along with some of my colleagues, I am not entirely sure that they are always prepared to listen and take those lessons on board.

Adam Ingram: This has been a very good debate. I have been doing my job for six years or so—as a jobbing Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) remarked—and have had the benefit of listening to some very good debates featuring contributions ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. I will not make another comment about my hon. Friend.
	Today's debate took a balanced approach and provided a helpful reminder of the important work that our armed forces are undertaking around the world. It went beyond the realms of its specific title and into the realm of foreign affairs, which I think was inevitable as there is a clear interconnection. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made a thoughtful speech. Others raised points of disagreement, which is in the nature of such debates, but at least the hon. Gentleman had thought about what he wanted to say and what he sought to define, and some of the issues he raised require consideration.
	One of the hon. Gentleman's points was about the way in which policy has been developed over the years. He paid proper tribute to the strategic defence review. As I have said here on other occasions, there was a degree of continuum in that process. The train had left the station before the Labour Government arrived, but it was realised that something had to be done. The process was driven by the political direction of the then Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Robertson, and the then Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), the current Home Secretary.
	Nothing stands still in defence. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) referred to the new chapter to the strategic defence review— [Interruption.] Well, he referred to the two support documents.

Julian Lewis: I referred to the defence White Paper.

Adam Ingram: I apologise. I was going to refer to the new chapter to the review. We had to stand back and look at what had been said in the SDR. Some of the assumptions were based on the experiences of 9/11 and the wake-up call that the world received at the time. Out of that have come some fundamental rethinks about how we should best position ourselves. That process is not complete. Some of it is clearly driven by budget issues, but there is nothing new about that, and it will always be the case when defence matters are involved.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) mentioned the reduction in the size of the infantry. His hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East mentioned the former Chief of the General Staff, General Jackson. I worked with him in developing the future structure of the infantry, and I recommend Members to remind themselves of the underlying principles.
	Owing to the way in which the arms plot works, up to 11 battalions were not available for use at any one time, mainly because of re-rolling. There was also the benefit flowing from the normalisation in Northern Ireland, which we had always expected to lead to change because of our heavy military commitment there. However, as a result of the change in the way in which the infantry is brigaded, all battalions will eventually be available for deployment. As General Jackson said at the time, we will have more battalions available with a total of 36 than we had with 40: that is the hard logic of the position.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring mentioned NATO, and criticised the role of some of our partners. Others mentioned the role played by national caveats. Those points are well made at various NATO engagements and meetings. At Riga, for example, there were developments and promises were made, but promises must be judged against what is delivered. There will be a further iteration of that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State goes to Seville and we move on to tackle the next development in Afghanistan, and some of the points made by the hon. Member for Woodspring will be picked up at that time.
	The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) also mentioned national caveats. He mentioned the study into NATO that the Defence Committee is undertaking. We welcome that inquiry and we look forward to its outcome. As ever, it will be thoughtful and a lot of effort will be put into it. It will help the Government in their approach not only within the MOD, but in terms of our relationship with our international partners.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring mentioned medical facilities. He raised an issue that must be addressed as we continue our presence in Afghanistan. Time does not permit me to go through all the aspects of the medical facilities that are in place there, but let me comment on CT scanning, which he, as a doctor, knows is an important part of treating some injured patients. All UK military patients who require a CT scan are transferred to the Canadian role 3 hospital, a high-grade hospital at Kandahar, and we are seeking to provide a CT scanner at the new tier-2 build of the UK role hospital in Camp Bastion, which is in the process of being procured and commissioned—it is due in May.
	In closing, I want to remind the House of the significant contribution that our forces are making across the world. More than 5,000 people are deployed outside Iraq and Afghanistan, from Brunei to the Falkland islands as well as in sub-Saharan Africa, Cyprus, Gibraltar and the Balkans. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) made that point. He also made another important point about the recognition that we give to our veterans and the role of the Veterans Agency. No matter how much energy he put into that when a Minister, or how much others have put in subsequently, it is an area that has to be developed as part of our MOD outputs. I am sure that there will be cross-party support for that.
	My right hon. Friend also asked about the pressure on key medical specialities. We recognise that there are shortages, and that creates problems. There are key shortfalls in the specialities of accident and emergency, orthopaedics, anaesthetics and general practice. We are taking steps to address them through a range of pay and non-remunerative initiatives, including working to ensure that pay remains comparable with that of the NHS—that must be part of the inducement—establishing alternative means of meeting operational commitments, and managing consultant deployments on a tri-service basis. We are working within the capacity that we have, and we are also trying to gain additional capacity to meet the needs in that crucial area. However, I want to emphasise that the defence medical services have met all the operational requirements placed on them. Medical support for deployed operations is vital and there is no question of British forces deploying on military operations without the appropriate medical support.
	I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). As ever, it was thoughtful and she raised two very important issues. I want to deal with one of them, which relates to her constituency concerns and the naval base review. We have been investing in the Royal Navy—despite what was said by the hon. Member for New Forest, East—in order to provide modern and effective ships, and it is only right that we review naval bases to make sure that we have the right infrastructure—no more and no less—to support the Royal Navy of the future and to ensure that we get the most out of the money that we have for defence. The reason for that is quite simple: to ensure that the resources are rightly focused on the front line. Surplus capacity and activity drains resources from the front line. Getting that balance right has always been a driver in defence, and is perhaps even more so now. I know that my hon. Friend understands that point and would not argue against it.
	These are difficult and weighty matters and it is important to have as much information as possible to support our decision making. The team undertaking the naval base review is ensuring that local aspects—the point that my hon. Friend made—as well as defence needs are taken into account. The review will help to determine the infrastructure that we must retain, and what, if anything, we can do without. There will be a lot of discussion and debate about the outcome, but that will not be because of a lack on input from people such as my hon. Friend, who has put together a very cohesive case on her constituency's behalf.
	The hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) raised a number of issues and I shall deal with just one—the coroner's court. There has been an unacceptable backlog of inquests at the Oxfordshire coroner's court, but that has begun to be addressed through the work of the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which has direct responsibility for such matters. Three additional assistant deputy coroners have been appointed to assist the Oxfordshire coroner in dealing with the backlog of operations-related inquests, primarily on deaths in Iraq. Some 15 inquests into the deaths of service personnel killed on Operation Telic have been scheduled for hearing between 1 January and the end of May this year. That means that most inquests relating to deaths of service personnel before 2006 that are in the jurisdiction of the Oxfordshire coroner will have been held. The DCA is taking steps to avoid a future backlog of inquests. The criticisms have been well made in the past and have been well made again today. We all recognise the vital importance of getting matters right.
	The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) had a cross-Chamber discussion with Members about his analysis of his party's policy on withdrawal from Iraq. I shall read what he said with interest—it is probably better to read it than to try to recollect it now—and compare it with the views expressed by the leader of his party, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). We will doubtless return to the issue. I do not want to labour the point, and we should not make too much of a party political point out of what he said. However and as I pointed out, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be coming my way, and toward this Government's view about the conditions-based circumstances that will lead us to reach a conclusion on the various developments that must take place in Iraq in the coming months.

Nick Harvey: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Last week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) outlined a proposed framework for a staged withdrawal from Iraq, which he said should culminate by 31 October. We were taking the Government at their word about handing over the provinces in the spring. The framework allows three months to negotiate with our allies and six to get out. That seems pretty flexible to me—nobody said that anything had to happen on 1 May that could not happen on 30 April or 2 May. However, I leave the Minister to his reading.

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman should. He has been away from the Chamber for some time, and I would have thought that he could come back with a better answer than that. However, we will deal with all these issues in due course.
	Given that this debate is about defence in the world, I want to talk about the role played by our forces in sub-Saharan Africa and the very considerable contribution that we are making there. An example is Sierra Leone, and although there is still some way to go, our contribution there is a major success. Although a settlement still has to be reached in respect of Kosovo, our contribution in the Balkans has also been a significant success. Some 600 personnel are in Bosnia, and that figure should drop very quickly, assuming that agreement is reached——I think that that will happen, because we are pushing for it—within the EU on the future position on Bosnia. That will be another indication of significant and important success.
	As others have said, we owe a major debt to our armed forces. Members of Parliament, both civilians and those who have served in Her Majesty's armed forces and who now serve in the House, all make such statements and we genuinely mean them. We owe a big debt of honour to our armed forces and we really do recognise that they are the best in the world.
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

OPERATION STACK

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Jonathan Shaw.]

Damian Green: I am grateful for the chance to speak about the subject that most enrages not only my constituents but people all over east and north Kent—including, I suspect, the constituents not only of the Minister but of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) who is the duty Whip. I imagine that their constituents regularly get as angry as my constituents do about being caught up in the backwash of Operation Stack.
	Operation Stack is the use of the M20 as a lorry park whenever there are problems getting lorries across the channel. It must be the worst piece of emergency transport planning anywhere in Britain. We all accept that motorways can be closed if there is a serious accident or if weather conditions dictate. But I am not aware of any other motorway that is regularly closed as a matter of deliberate policy to address a problem that has nothing to do with driving conditions.
	The closures are becoming increasingly common. In the 20 years since Operation Stack was first introduced, phase 1, which involves closing the motorway at the end, between junctions 11 and 12, has been implemented 74 times. Phase 2—closure between junctions 8 and 9 around my constituency in Ashford—has happened 17 times. But last year it was invoked six times, and it has happened three times so far this year already. I can speak with some feeling about recent incidents because on Thursdays I drive home down the M20 and leave at junction 8, as I will tonight. It takes about an hour and a quarter—or not, if there is a queue of lorries tailing back from junction 8 waiting to be stacked. Closing the motorway should be absolutely the last resort. In this bizarre policy, it is the first resort.
	The combination of the notorious French attitude to industrial relations, which involves closing the port of Calais at the first available excuse, and the weather in winter, means that unless something is done, this policy will be a never-ending misery. I am not using exaggerated language. I could fill my entire time in this debate—and probably the Minister's—reading out letters and e-mails from my own constituents explaining how the closure of the M20 has affected them. Inevitably, it clogs up every main road in east Kent as people try to avoid it. People take hours to get to work. Appointments are missed. Contracts are lost. Business grinds to a halt. If the Minister thinks that I am exaggerating, I refer him to the KentOnline website, where he can see dozens of examples of what happens. I have studied the website to learn the current feelings about Operation Stack, and even I was surprised by the number and vehemence of the complaints about it. That website is one of many with competing petitions to the effect that it must stop immediately.
	Operation Stack is not just a personal inconvenience for those involved. It has a damaging effect on the whole economy of the county. A survey for the Federation of Small Businesses in Kent showed that levels of dissatisfaction with the road network are significantly higher in Kent even than in the rest of the country. The federation has calculated that the cost to its members in Kent alone is £10 million a year, and the overall effect on Kent businesses will of course be much larger.
	In that context, I remind the Minister of the need for incoming investment to provide jobs for the people who will move to the 31,000 new houses planned for my constituency in the next 25 years, or to the many thousands of other houses that it is hoped will be built in Kent. The plans just for Ashford assume, grandly, that 28,000 new jobs will be created. In an increasingly competitive world, we need to entice businesses to come to Kent. Closing the motorway for unspecified periods at unexpected but regular intervals, and doing so more and more frequently, is exactly the wrong way to encourage new investment in the county.
	On top of the economic damage being done, there is an effect on the Kent police. Like many forces, they are extremely stretched. The chief constable of Kent is Mike Fuller, who has called the existing method of dealing with the backlog of trucks waiting to cross the channel a "huge drain" on police resources. He said:
	"It is not something we want to do, nor something we do lightly."
	In the past three years, Operation Stack has cost the Kent police more than £232,000 in overtime and extra equipment costs alone. The chief constable has said:
	"We are desperate for the highways authorities to come up with a solution."
	That desperation is echoed by many other people.
	The problem is getting worse every year, as freight traffic increases. Some 2.3 million trucks use the ferries at Dover every year, and roughly another 1.2 million use the channel tunnel as a freight route. In 2006, the amount of freight going through Dover rose by about 18 per cent., and that is expected to double over the next 20 years. If the problem is bad now, we can expect it to get much worse in the years to come—unless we do something about it now.
	Before I move on to the solutions being proposed, I want to raise one other matter—the sheer time that it has taken for anyone to get a grip on the problem. The letters in my file go back as far as 1999, and they make depressing reading for students of public policy and governance in this country. Over the years, the police have said that they are doing what they are told to do, the county council that it is doing what the Government demands, and the district councils that they have neither the power nor the money to solve the problem. The Department for Transport and the Highways Agency have said that Operation Stack is indeed is a problem, and that they will deal with it some day. The traffic stops, but the buck keeps moving.
	That is why I am delighted that Kent county council has taken the initiative of looking for some sites, one of which would be suitable for parking some 2,000 lorries. That would make a significant difference to the need for Operation Stack. The council is working closely with the relevant borough councils of Ashford, Dover, Shepway and Maidstone, and with the channel corridor partnership.
	As the Minister will be aware, those borough councils are vitally interested in the matter, as there is a longer-term need to provide permanent lorry parking in that part of the world. Many areas, including parts of Ashford, are regularly blighted by unofficial and sometimes illegal parking. One of the beneficial side effects of having a lorry park that could cope with Operation Stack would be a partial alleviation of that longer-term problem.
	However, that is not the main focus of my plea to the Minister this evening. I know that he is aware of the problems associated with the motorway network and the freight routes through Kent. I was glad to see his honesty and straightforwardness when he admitted to the Select Committee on Transport that the approach to the port of Dover was one of the elements of this country's transport system that we have not got right. Everyone agrees about that, but it is a longer-term problem. I am talking about an immediate problem that needs an immediate solution.
	I hope that the Minister is encouraged by the work that has been done so far by the councils, and especially by the helpful work on technological advances. I understand that it is now not necessary to put down large amounts of concrete over green fields to create a temporary truck stop. We can use underground mesh to strengthen the turf, which allows the grass to continue to grow but provides a strong enough surface for a lorry park. We need to take environmental considerations into account. This new method, which would not have been available some years ago, offers a practical way forward which will minimise some of the inevitable environmental damage, and therefore opposition, that arises from setting up a new lorry park.
	What am I asking for this evening? I want the Minister to commit his Department to doing everything in its power to push through an alternative to Operation Stack as soon as possible. The current feasibility study into the sites identified by Kent county council will take only a few weeks. I hope and expect that the councils will also receive some positive help from the South East England Development Agency, which is rightly taking an interest in all this. Its duty is to foster economic development throughout the region, and without a solution to Operation Stack, steady prosperity and economic development in Kent will be much more difficult to achieve.
	In the end, all the work of SEEDA, the county council and the district councils will not create a solution unless central Government become actively involved. Clearly, on a practical level any possible solution will require access roads and will need to complement the existing road network. Equally clearly, the funding of any new arrangement will need at the very least Department for Transport blessing, even if it comes, as I suspect it can, from existing programmes. I hope that the Minister can commit himself to more than warm words when he responds. I hope that he will commit himself and his Department to working with Kent county council and the other public bodies and, most of all, commit his Department to a leading role. I fear that without an active and leading role, the solution will again fall into the category of something that is too difficult and "not my problem", which is where this has lain for far too long.
	The Minister will be aware that 2007 has so far been an appallingly frustrating year for those of us who regularly use the M20. Let us at least go through this year in the hope and expectation that it will be the last year that we will have to endure Operation Stack. If we can achieve that, and if he can play a positive role in achieving it, everyone involved will give thanks, from the road haulage industry to my constituents, his constituents and the thousands of others who use the roads in east Kent. We cannot carry on like this, and I hope that the Minister can assure us that we will not have to.

Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) for raising this important issue and I congratulate him on securing the debate. We are having a Kent night here since the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) is a Kent Member, as am I.
	I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realises this, but as well as being the roads Minister, I am the road safety Minister and I have noted that he can get to junction 8 on the M20 in an hour and a quarter at this time on a Thursday night. I think that I shall be asking our chief constable to keep an eye open for him.
	As a Kent Member, as well as roads Minister, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about Operation Stack, which has a major impact on east Kent. I am as anxious as he is to find a solution for constituency and ministerial reasons. I certainly hope that I can offer him more than warm words tonight.
	Since the beginning of December, Operation Stack has been implemented five times, mainly because of the severe weather. That has led to a high level of non-HGV diversionary traffic on local roads and disrupted journeys for many people. Indeed, I have been caught up in it myself, so I understand the frustration first-hand.
	The origins of Operation Stack go back to the seamen's strike of 1988 when the M20 was closed between junctions 9 and 13 for about 14 weeks—the M20 between junctions 8 and 9 was not open at the time. However, that use of the M20 was not formalised and before 1997 the normal emergency traffic management plan involved allowing lorries and cars to park anywhere, especially on the A20, although many used local roads—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would not want us to return to that arrangement. Because we recognised the serious disruption that was being caused for local residents and businesses, a system was developed to provide emergency parking on the M20 for heavy goods vehicles; in essence, that was the Operation Stack that operates nowadays.
	Operation Stack is for emergencies, and the decision to implement is taken by Kent police who invoke their emergency powers. Its three phases can together provide space for a total of 7,400 trucks that would otherwise be parked on unsuitable roads. I am told that the police have never had to use phase 3, although I understand that it came close to being implemented during the recent severe weather.
	Over the years improvements have been made to the use of Operation Stack. A ticketing regime has been introduced by transport operators, whereby lorries are sequentially ticketed and queued for boarding on the closed motorway, which helps to prevent lorries that try to avoid stacking on the M20 from clogging up less suitable roads. At Easter 2005, when Stack had to be implemented an exceptional number of times, owing to berthing problems at Calais, the Highways Agency and the police trialled new contraflow arrangements between junctions 8 and 9 on the northbound carriageway, allowing lorries to be stacked on the southbound carriageway while also allowing other southbound traffic to use part of the northbound carriageway to go south.
	Although it took a long time to set up the cones, which proved resource-intensive for the police and the Highways Agency contractors, the use of a contraflow system was considered a success in terms of better traffic management. However, the system normally takes too long to set up with conventional coning to be useful, given the short notice that we usually have of the need for Operation Stack, and for safety reasons the police do not recommend a system based on cones. As a result, studies were carried out on the possibility of using an American system, the quickchange moveable barrier—QMB—to implement speedier contraflow arrangements. The system is being used at the A2-M2 roadworks in Kent, where our joint constituents can see it working effectively in practice.
	Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman may have implied, I emphasise that we have not been complacent. We have not been sitting around doing nothing; we have constantly looked for ways to improve Operation Stack—how traffic is managed and how we can ensure compliance of trucks in parking on the M20, where they can be managed, rather than on other roads. In addition, the Highways Agency is working in partnership with the local authorities to review the effects of Operation Stack and is considering what improvements might be possible, both in the short and medium term, to reduce the delay both for cross-channel and local travellers.
	In the short term, before the end of March this financial year, two improvements to setting up traffic management for Operation Stack will be installed. A new permanent sign will be mounted on the verge approaching the commencement of the traffic management arrangements for Operation Stack. The sign will display "Workforce in Road - Slow Down", and a warning will be given to drivers by the use of amber flashing beacons. That will help to protect the work force and the police while they install lane closures when Stack is being implemented. The time taken to set up the traffic management arrangements will also be significantly reduced by using black guidelines—set in the road surface—to allow traffic management to be implemented quickly on the correct alignment.
	In the medium term, the Highways Agency is making progress in the use of the quickchange moveable barrier, which I mentioned earlier, and now has operational experience of this innovative technique. It was used effectively on a scheme on the A21 last autumn and it has now been adopted at a major project in Kent on the A2-A282. The system is proving beneficial in reducing the length of the contract period, with resulting benefits to all road users. Given the novelty of the system in this country, the Highways Agency has done well to get it trialled so quickly.
	Design work has been commissioned for central reserve works to accommodate the QMB and for a storage facility for the QMB machine. That is part of phase 1 of Operation Stack. I expect to see detailed costings and information on the economics of proceeding with the scheme in the next month or so. We are considering a QMB to speed up contraflow arrangements, but in addition, the Highways Agency is examining ways of introducing a package of low-cost traffic management works on the A20 near Dover to ease flow from the M20 to the docks, and it is working with Dover district council and Kent county council on that. Such improvements could include variable message signs, static signs, white lining, local realignment of roundabouts and phased signalling.
	The Highways Agency, in partnership with Kent county council and Medway council, is conducting a county-wide variable message sign study. Lack of accurate information is a cause of customer dissatisfaction, according to the Highways Agency's road user satisfaction survey. The study will assess motorists' requirements for improved information on both the strategic and the local road network. Discussions are taking place between the Highways Agency and Kent county council to secure operational agreements. That will allow the more effective use of tactical diversions between the M2 and the M20 strategic routes, using the A229 and the A249. Those agreed diversions could be used for Operation Stack, or for any other major incident.
	The Highways Agency is working with partners to find short and medium-term solutions to Operation Stack, but as the hon. Gentleman says, we need to find a long-term solution. On the longer term, three or four proposals are being discussed with developers, the district councils and Kent county council. The Government office for the south-east is a supporting partner in the discussions on identifying and bringing forward proposals. In November 2005, it published a paper on the issue, and I understand that it was well received. It was part of the push to bring together all interested parties to determine how Operation Stack could be replaced.
	During 2006, the channel corridor partnership, which includes officials from the Government office for the south-east, held the "lorries in Kent" summit. I understand that the summit led to a delegation of Kent partners lobbying the European Commission for recognition of Operation Stack as a trans-European issue. The Department recently commissioned a study to assess whether there is likely to be a business case for the private sector providing a large, multi-use lorry park that could potentially be used for Operation Stack. We hope to have the results by the summer. However, the success of any solution would depend on the role played by the local planning authority and other stakeholders. Potential developers are coming up with proposals that are being investigated and explored. At the moment, four sites are being discussed, and they should be assessed within the context of the study.
	From comments in the Kent media, and having checked with Kent officers, I understand that Kent county council is urgently looking for off-road sites. We will receive any ideas that it produces with interest, and will look at them closely. I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will take its ideas seriously and that we will actively investigate them, but I hope that he understands that the site has to be acquired and made accessible to heavy trucks in difficult weather conditions. There is also the matter of building slip roads and other roads leading to the site. Those are not cheap options, and we have to find a cost-effective solution.
	I have asked my officials to consider how we might incentivise lorries to find official parking outside Kent as part of a distributed Operation Stack. Perhaps we could encourage lorries to go to lorry parks elsewhere in the country before they even reach Kent, and issue them with tickets in those remote sites, so that when Operation Stack is eventually lifted, they can make the journey to Kent and get on the boat at the time specified on the ticket.

Damian Green: I hope that the Minister will go on to say that there will be some sort of signalling arrangement to provide the information. That would counter the slight chill in the blood that I felt when he mentioned that one of the improvements might be a permanent signalling arrangement to warn people that Operation Stack was about to start. I do not think that anyone in Kent would find that very encouraging. If he promised some kind of signalling arrangement to enable the lorries to be distributed across the country, and not just across the county, people would think it a step forward.

Stephen Ladyman: I entirely agree. We have to look at that issue. If we can stop people coming to Kent in the first place when Operation Stack is on, that will make the situation much easier for us to manage. The problem is, of course, that at the moment even if we got the message to a lorry driver that Operation Stack was in place, he or she would have to ask themselves how they would get their place on the boat to get over the channel if they did not come to Kent. They get their place on the boat by coming and queuing up in Operation Stack. Clearly, at the moment they are incentivised to come to Kent and cause us a problem. It would be a matter of, first, finding a way of getting messages to them to tell them not to come to Kent, and, secondly, making sure that, wherever they decide to go to, they can access ticketing arrangements to make sure that they retain their place on the ferry or train. These are complicated issues, but I entirely agree that it is an important matter that we have to focus on.
	I have mentioned working in partnership several times. Let me be absolutely clear. I entirely welcome Kent county council's recent initiative to look into the matter. What I find a little more difficult to deal with is the impression that it gives that the Government have been sitting back doing nothing and finally the council is having to come over the hill like the cavalry to save matters. It has always been a responsibility of Kent county council, as a stakeholder in the issue, to step up to the plate and help us to find a solution and I am grateful that it is doing that now. However, it should not give the impression that it has somehow had to pick up the baton because everybody else has dropped it. We have all been trying to work to find a solution to the matter. If the council has practical ideas about how we can deliver that solution, I welcome its co-operation and we will certainly work closely with it to explore its ideas. However, the Highways Agency and central Government are not able to take planning decisions and there are some important and tricky planning issues that will have to be resolved if a permanent off-road solution to Operation Stack is to be found. It will be a matter for Kent county council and the district councils concerned to co-operate with us in getting those necessary planning permissions.
	Let us look forward, however. Let us assume that we are now all determined to work together to solve this matter. Certainly, the Government have always been determined to try to resolve it. I am absolutely determined that we will find a solution to it. There is no easy solution to the problem that is Operation Stack. Local authorities, the port and the channel tunnel, as well as the Government, all have a role to play in finding the answer. We will not find a solution any quicker by ducking our responsibilities and blaming other stakeholders. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman in that respect. We must all play a part and I give him a firm commitment that I will ensure that the Government are an active partner in the process and that we will find a solution as quickly as is humanly possible.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Six o'clock.